3 ms·
> What's the value in publishing something that is never replicated? Because it presents an experimental result to other scientists that they may consider wort
by wizofaus 3y ago
> What's the value in publishing something that is never replicated?
Because it presents an experimental result to other scientists that they may consider worth trying to replicate?
- dongping 3y agoThen those unconfirmed results are better put on arxiv, instead of being used to evaluate the performance of scientists. Tenure and grant committees should only consider replicated work.
- geysersam 3y agoI don't agree. A published article should not be taken for Gods Truth no matter if it's replicated or peer reviewed. Lots of "replicated" "peer-reviewed" research have been found to be wrong. That's fine, it's part of the process of discovery. A paper should be taken for what it is: a piece of scientific work, a part of a puzzle.