News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Replace Peer Review with “Peer Replication” (2021). Parent comment

Re:Replace Peer Review with “Peer Replication” (2021) by coldtea on Sunday August 06, 2023 @07:29PM (#37028055)
>I don't see how this could ever work, and non-scientists seem to often dramatically underestimate the amount of work it would be to replicate every published paper.

Then perhaps those papers shouldn't be published? Or held in any higher esteem than a blog post by the same authors?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Replace Peer Review with “Peer Replication” (2021) by gus_massa on Sunday August 06, 2023 @08:29PM (#37028506)
An arXiv preprint is like a blog post.

A paper in a peer review journal is like posting a request for reproduction in a heavily moderated mailing list.

A paper in a predatory journal is like the "You are the best ___" price that you get if you pay to go to the "congress" invitation in spam.

Neither of them guaranty that the result is true. The publication in some peer review journals give a minimal guaranty that the paper is not horribly bad, but I've seen too much crap there too.

I know a few journals and author in my area that are serious and I can guess the result will hold, but I find very difficult to evaluate journals and authors in other areas.

[ Parent | on HN ]