3 ms·
“If a journal publishes a result, they are ethically obligated to publish further work that refutes that result.” Too general. Few in science would accept this
by dash2 7y ago
“If a journal publishes a result, they are ethically obligated to publish further work that refutes that result.”
Too general. Few in science would accept this. The claim here is the weaker one that journals are ethically obliged to accept failed replication studies - and even that is non-obvious to me. (Should Science also be obliged to accept _successful_ replications? No? So it should accept papers on the basis solely of the results? Hello, publication bias.)
- vinay_ys 7y agoAren't they obligated to investigate? If the methodology applied is sound and conclusions are different, isn't that scientific progress in and of itself? The ask here is to send it for peer-review so that they get some different points of view which may guide their own further study. They are ok with rejection but not without peer-review.
- Hasknewbie 7y agoNice attempt at reframing there, but if this new paper is correct then it's not a 'failed replication', it's a refutation. Big difference.