Replace Peer Review with “Peer Replication” (2021)

Re:Replace Peer Review with “Peer Replication” (2021) by wizofaus on Sunday August 06, 2023 @05:25PM (#37026964)

> What's the value in publishing something that is never replicated?

Because it presents an experimental result to other scientists that they may consider worth trying to replicate?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Replace Peer Review with “Peer Replication” (2021) by dongping on Sunday August 06, 2023 @05:36PM (#37027073)

Then those unconfirmed results are better put on arxiv, instead of being used to evaluate the performance of scientists. Tenure and grant committees should only consider replicated work.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Replace Peer Review with “Peer Replication” (2021) by geysersam on Sunday August 06, 2023 @06:18PM (#37027486)

I don't agree. A published article should not be taken for Gods Truth no matter if it's replicated or peer reviewed.

Lots of "replicated" "peer-reviewed" research have been found to be wrong. That's fine, it's part of the process of discovery.

A paper should be taken for what it is: a piece of scientific work, a part of a puzzle.

[ Parent | on HN ]