I am just a moderator, and a slug science guy.
These comments are exceptional and deserve some more airing.
Thanks to the writers.
marque2 | June 7, 2014 at 2:18 pm | Reply | Edit
People confuse Peer review, with independently reproduced. Peer review, just makes sure your math is So so (not even good, as the reviewer probably isn’t a mathematician).
What is really needed is for an independent set of scientists to independently reproduce the results. this isn’t done anymore, because of budget, and because scientists know about the 1/20 false positive rate, which is probably responsible for a lot of papers, and then there are the social aspects, don’t really want to disprove the hot scientists results, and then there are the nefarious aspects, don’t reproduce them or they will reproduce you, and it might just be discovered that your whole field is based on false premises. Can’t have any of that – so no one does it any more.
Bill | June 6, 2014 at 9:04 pm | Reply | Edit
All true, except you left out the initial short literature review, a null hypothesis, methods, probabilities, and a long list of citations, including those in support and opposition of the findings.