News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on A new replication crisis: Research that is less likely to be true is cited more. Parent comment

Re:A new replication crisis: Research that is less likely to... by lnwlebjel on Friday May 21, 2021 @10:17PM (#27242676)
Some journals allow you to specify reviewers to exclude. True that there is no guarantee about published work being good, but that is likely more about the fact that it takes time to sort out the truth than about nefarious cabals of bad scientist.

I think the inaccessibility is for different reasons, most of which revolve around the use of jargon.

In my experience, the situation is not so bad. It is obvious who the good scientist are and you can almost always be sure that if they wrote it it's good.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A new replication crisis: Research that is less likely to... by TimPC on Saturday May 22, 2021 @07:59AM (#27245672)
In many journals it's abuse of process to exclude reviewers you don't like. Much of the times this is supposed to be used to declare conflicts of interest based on relationships you have in the field.
[ Parent | on HN ]