pull down to refresh
123 sats \ 2 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 17 Jan \ parent \ on: The strain on scientific publishing science
The real problem comes in when you follow the money. If the non-binding reviewers are paid shills for someone else, their reviews are just as possibly bogus as a groupthink review. I think that the only valid review would be re-running the experiment under the same conditions with the same methods to see the results and then report those results.
AI has a very, very long way to go before I could consider trusting it. I do not like the bias in training, either.
I think that the only valid review would be re-running the experiment under the same conditions with the same methods to see the results and then report those results.
That's indeed the only valid review. That's how science is ultimately self-correcting. In theory.
The problem is that this process can take a lot of time. Some of the experiments in my field require such specialized and expensive equipment, that only a few groups in the world have the expertise to carry them out. Same with the theory and simulations, it requires sometimes very specific math and codes, that again, only few people have the skills to repeat the previous results.
And all of this comes back to the discussion of financial or reputation incentives. Why would I spend time repeating work that has already been done?
reply
You would spend time repeating work that has already been done to validate or falsify it. As you say, it is the only valid review.
How many times have we seen falsified data, bogus results and other scientific hijinks in the peer-reviewed but not replicated published papers? I realize that sometimes you cannot replicate because of expense or lack of equipment and talent, but what else can you do?
reply