3 ms·
Can confirm. People outside academia seem to believe that reproducibility is an explicit goal when publishing papers. Perhaps it should be, but generally speak
by nl 4y ago
Can confirm.
People outside academia seem to believe that reproducibility is an explicit goal when publishing papers. Perhaps it should be, but generally speaking it isn't. Instead a paper is a record of the things the authors found interesting and novel when doing the work.
- throwoutway 4y agoAnd if they’re objectively wrong, then what?
- nl 4y ago"Wrong" is different to "fraudulent" If they are wrong then you publish a paper with conflicting results. If there is fraud (which is different to "I can't replicate the results") then you deal with the publisher of the paper.
- infogulch 4y agoWell there's two problems, first is journals refusing to publish anything that conflicts with previous publications (a despicable practice that goes against the most fundamental principles of science that include curiosity and the willingness to be wrong and change, see also [1]), second is a reasonable expectation to get a response from the original authors when asked about a failure to replicate (even in the mode of "you're stupid and did it wrong"). [1]: The importance of stupidity in scientific research | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31977918 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31977918