7 ms·
I would not even say those things would count as “real peer review.” Peer review is supposed to involve replication. Unfortunately that almost never happens the
by Pulcinella 4y ago
I would not even say those things would count as “real peer review.” Peer review is supposed to involve replication. Unfortunately that almost never happens these days.
- stonogo 4y agoWhat gives you that impression? Replication is a too-often neglected aspect of the scientific process, but I've never heard anyone ascribe it to the peer review aspect.
- robotresearcher 4y agoI've been a working scientist for three decades and have never heard that position before. Are you going to delay publication of results from the LHC or JWST until someone has built another one? The traditional unit of replication is a published paper, not a submitted paper. A peer review takes positions on these things: - does the paper correctly describe the state of the art, with appropriate references? - does the paper claim and explain a novel contribution? - is the methodology sound? - do the claimed results justify the claimed contribution? - does the paper clearly communicate to its audience? That's it. Replication will be attempted later if the audience cares about the results.