3 ms·
Your point is well-taken and (thankfully) there are safeguards in place at top journals. However, Rob Tibshirani examined this a while back with a case study an
by imaginaryunit 15y ago
Your point is well-taken and (thankfully) there are safeguards in place at top journals. However, Rob Tibshirani examined this a while back with a case study and came up with some unsettling conclusions about reproducibility: http://www-stat.stanford.edu/~tibs/FL/report/ http://www-stat.stanford.edu/~tibs/FL/report/. The case study highlights the importance of debugging not only code, but also the entire experimental process.
- a_bonobo 15y agoTrue! If you want a newer example, here's a very recent paper which looks at the results of a couple of RNA-Seq-papers and after being able to reproduce only 12% of the results, concludes that they all used the wrong assumptions in their statistics: http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1002600 http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fj... Which shows that the editor really needs to know what's going on and why in each paper - I don't think every editor can know everything about his or her field.