Re:Argonne National Lab is attempting to replicate LK-99
by hn_throwaway_99 on Saturday July 29, 2023 @11:22AM
(#36921129)
I don't think you are really arguing against what the parent poster was saying. That is, I interpreted the parent commenter as saying that journals require that submissions at the very least be in a clear, understandable, "your paper must be at least verifiable (or falsifiable)" format, not that they actually attempt to reproduce the results.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Argonne National Lab is attempting to replicate LK-99
by davidktr on Saturday July 29, 2023 @12:21PM
(#36921740)
(not OP) Verifiability/falsifiability are big words, mostly it is not clear what that means in a specific case. Crucially, that is not what journals/editors/reviewers do. They check if they find the contribution convincing, novel, and in line with the discipline's community standards, nothing more.
Re:Argonne National Lab is attempting to replicate LK-99
by xorbax on Sunday July 30, 2023 @02:17PM
(#36934267)
No, I think a half decent paper is expected to 3ither explain their methods or reference a paper that explains their method
You don't get to handwave away the instructions of your experiment in my mind. Maybe other fields are fine without that, but I would never write a paper that doesn't clearly explain how I made samples or reference a paper which does. To do otherwise is bad science.
It's not about a reviewer replicating it, it's about anybody replicating it in a year or 30 years.