4 ms·

This is exactly my experience as well. Old techniques are easier approved by peer review, I guess so there is little incentive to change?

• bumby 5y ago
  I think there is less risk from the reviewer and publisher’s standpoint. It’s much easier for them to get behind an incremental change than one that upsets the paradigm. Even if the incremental step is built on a more fundamental error, there is still a lot of former research built in it as well so they aren’t sticking their necks out like if they were the first to approve one that challenges the status quo
  • dnautics 5y ago
    In my case there is no incremental improvement to "stop using this solvent because no amount of it is acceptable in your experiments because of the artifacts it causes"
    • bumby 5y ago
      But wouldn’t yours be an example of an incremental improvement in the experimental process?