3 ms·
It really isn't. This paper was accepted and published in a peer-reviewed journal. Research could already be underway based on the results of this paper. The pa
by golly_ned 3y ago
It really isn't. This paper was accepted and published in a peer-reviewed journal. Research could already be underway based on the results of this paper. The paper was retracted because the other co-authors raised concerns, not based on experiment or observation. Science working as intended would mean this paper wasn't published in the first place, nor would a researcher like this have his own lab.
- zwieback 3y agoSecond order science working as intended.
- greentea23 3y agoScience historically works on the time scale of decades and centuries, not months and years imo. So I think it's working faster and better than ever before. Journals are not science, just a small tool for slightly better communication between scientists. I think/hope we'll make them obsolete in favor of something that looks more like git repos with lots of automated analysis of logic and tests etc eventually.
- hackerlight 3y agoPeer review is a modern invention, so benchmarking whether or not science is working based on peer review is a bizarre notion. What we're seeing is indeed old-school science working as it always has.
- fooker 3y agoWhy are you conflating peer review with science? Peer review is a relatively modern invention. A vast majority of important 20th century physics, for example was pre-peer review.