News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on New human-like species discovered. Parent comment

Re:New human-like species discovered by kibibu on Thursday September 10, 2015 @09:26PM (#10201516)
A peer review can identify a very large class of problems with research without actually replicating the experiment.

For example, problems with methodology and sampling, overlooked prior research, bad analysis of results, straight-up non-sequiturs and conclusions drawn from insufficient data.

All of these mean peer review is valuable without reproducing results.

For an extreme example: if somebody publishes a "Cheese found on moon" paper, do you expect the reviewer to mount an expedition to the moon to check?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:New human-like species discovered by yawaramin on Thursday September 10, 2015 @09:45PM (#10201566)
Those are all excellent points, but even if you don't find any significant problems with the methodology or the math, or any of the other factors, that still doesn't make a complete review--not without replication.

For the 'Cheese found on moon' paper, I would expect the reviewer to clearly state that the results could not be replicated before mentioning anything else. Let readers draw informed conclusions based on a complete picture of the result, including whether or not it was a one-off.

[ Parent | on HN ]