3 ms·
Isn't peer review supposed to catch stuff like this? I mean, that's supposedly the "gold standard" for studies, right?
by dadjoker 4y ago
Isn't peer review supposed to catch stuff like this? I mean, that's supposedly the "gold standard" for studies, right?
- tptacek 4y agoNo, peer review is absolutely not the "gold standard" for studies. Replication is closer to the gold standard, but replication is a scientific project all its own. Peer review is a sanity check before allowing a research contribution to become part of the conversation in its field. (I've done some academic reviewing, but this is a point I've shoplifted from Stefan Savage).
- PeterisP 4y agoPeer review is not the "gold standard" but rather table stakes; if some paper can't even pass that, it's probably not worth even skimming the abstract.