3 ms·
> it will increase the surface for nitpicking and criticism You're supposed to welcome criticism and 'nitpicking' as a scientist.
by chrisseaton 5y ago
> it will increase the surface for nitpicking and criticism
You're supposed to welcome criticism and 'nitpicking' as a scientist.
- MaxBarraclough 5y agoThis back-and-forth has happened before on HN. [0] As I rambled at the time, [1] it seems to me (non-scientist) that publication norms are well behind the times. Researchers shouldn't be in a position to decide how much they graciously deign to disclose for independent review. If the scientific publication process permits researchers to withhold details they fear won't withstand independent review, that means it's failing to do its job. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24261706 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24261706 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24264376 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24264376
- lanstin 5y agoNot from untrained randos on the internet. Signal noise ratio and prior of “not a nutjob” have to be high enough to offset the cost of lost focus.
- dahart 5y agoThat’s a bit of a dismissive straw man. The quote was explicitly referring to nitpicking of things unrelated to the research. You intentionally snipped the very next three words “e.g. code style”. Contrary to your implication, it is not a scientist’s job to welcome any and all nitpicking and criticism, which is why there are professional moderated platforms for relevant science critique, as opposed to criticism.