Transparent peer review to be extended to all of Nature's research papers

Re:Transparent peer review to be extended to all of Nature's... by thomasfedb on Monday June 16, 2025 @04:50PM (#44293269)

Nothing is ever “proven”. There is simply more or less support for a theory or proposition.

Replication and meta-analysis are an important part of this.

Most scientists are in fact very conservative with how they claim their results - less so university PR departments and “study shows” clickbaiters.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Transparent peer review to be extended to all of Nature's... by blix on Monday June 16, 2025 @07:14PM (#44294231)

I wish this comment was more representative of my personal experience in science.

Instead I got PIs happy to say that weak evidence "proved" their theory and to try suppress evidence that negatively impacted "fundablity". The most successful scientists I worked with were the ones who always talked like a PR puff piece.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Transparent peer review to be extended to all of Nature's... by jxjnskkzxxhx on Monday June 16, 2025 @08:07PM (#44294502)

What field, may I ask?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Transparent peer review to be extended to all of Nature's... by blix on Monday June 16, 2025 @10:36PM (#44295280)

Applied physics. I'd prefer not to get too specific. Most of my peers are working for the US DoD or DoE now.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Transparent peer review to be extended to all of Nature's... by jxjnskkzxxhx on Tuesday June 17, 2025 @03:46AM (#44296643)

I wonder if what you described is due to the money incentive?

I did theoretical physics (no money) and my experience totally matches what the other person described.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Transparent peer review to be extended to all of Nature's... by jxjnskkzxxhx on Monday June 16, 2025 @05:08PM (#44293408)

I approve of this comment.

[ Parent | on HN ]