Re:We Should Not Accept Scientific Results That Have Not Bee...
by vibrio on Friday July 29, 2016 @03:35PM
(#12189363)
As a former life scientist, I completely agree also.
Things do get repeated. If the findings aren't robust, scientists cut bait and move on. This knowledge is shared informally, for certian. This "Formalzation" of the experimental repetition would be difficult since no one wants grant money or their careers spent generating "yeah, s/he's right about that' outcomes.
If something truly revolutionary is published and it's relevant to your own work, it's very common to repeat the experiment yourself. If it works, great, continue on with your own work and reference the original paper when you publish new results.
If it doesn't work, the outcome can range from: (1) mentally note and move onto an alternative if they are available to (2) spend a ton of time trying to "fix" it, including contacting the original author.
The only time you see reproducibility experiments published is if the original paper made some serious errors, including outright fraud.
An there is no way you'd be able to test the reproducibility of every paper because some papers aren't that important. The important ones get the attention and if you see multiple scientists referencing a work (and building off of it), you can have confidence it actually works.