Re:What happens when you try to publish a failure to replica...
by gritzko on Wednesday June 29, 2016 @05:27AM
(#12000427)
That only gives you academic critique and follow-ups.
Sometimes, some practitioner is pissed to the degree he/she posts an opinion online. That is extremely valuable, but never gets into the citation graph.
For example... http://bramcohen.livejournal.com/20140.html?thread=214956
> I'd comment on academic papers more, but generally they're so bad that evaluating them does little more than go over epistemological problems with their methodology, and is honestly a waste of time.
Re:What happens when you try to publish a failure to replica...
by semi-extrinsic on Wednesday June 29, 2016 @07:27AM
(#12000884)
Yes, we write comment papers. But the process is very very slow, so many don't bother.
I submitted a comment paper to a journal in March last year. The paper I was commenting on was from November 2014. My comment got accepted, after two rounds of peer review, in May this year. It will appear in the journal in July some time.
Re:What happens when you try to publish a failure to replica...
by sevensor on Wednesday June 29, 2016 @09:55AM
(#12001616)
And that's fast by academic publishing standards. A flamewar that would take a day in an internet forum can smoulder for decades in academia, while the principals gather supporters and snipe at each other in conference sessions.
So what you’re looking for is the citation graph, and you can find it e.g. on Google scholar. Search for the paper you are interested in, and then click the link which lists all the papers which cite that one.
You’ll probably need to be on a university campus or ask your anonymous internet friends for help to get around paywalls.