well actually (sorry, couldn't resist) the refrain of "correlation is not causation" despite not having read beyond the headline, or "...in mice" when that's me

well actually (sorry, couldn't resist) the refrain of "correlation is not causation" despite not having read beyond the headline, or "...in mice" when that's mentioned in the abstract, is pretty frustrating when that's the entire substance of the comment. it seems some technical and social countermeasures could be deployed so there was at least token visiting of a link before commenting was allowed, which court raise discourse in this forum, at least. It's a false dichotomy to only consider the two extremes of Peer Reviewed and HN reviewed. In particular, as mentioned up thread, the incentive to do peer review (or replicate an experiment, for that matter) isn't as high as working on your own research, attempting to do some novel work for a shot at a Nobel prize. as every coder who's been the reviewer on a code review knows, it's difficult, and one that often is not well prioritized among other priorities a senior IC might have, leading to poor quality reviewing or other work slipping (only so many hours in a week). Thus, one could imagine a system that gives direct compensation for review work to grad and smart undergrad students who work in the area being discussed vetting and/or contextualizing claims like "this work is/is not novel", rather than hoping someone who does work in that area is procrastinating on HN at just the right time to make the claim and the rebuttal and the rebuttal-rebuttal. If the rubuttal is posted after the thread falls off the front page, is anyone not in that thread even going to know that what they read was wrong?