Re:Plan to replicate 50 high-impact cancer papers shrinks to...
by TeMPOraL on Tuesday August 07, 2018 @03:51AM
(#17704583)
> It's the expected state of affairs when you're working with imperfect, noisy techniques, and trying tease out subtle phenomena.
Sounds like a ridiculously low standard. If your paper is in principle unreplicable, then I only have your word for evidence of what you're claiming. This is not science. Even journalists are held to a higher standard.
Sounds like a ridiculously low standard. If your paper is in principle unreplicable, then I only have your word for evidence of what you're claiming. This is not science. Even journalists are held to a higher standard.