undefined | Better HN

0 pointswizofaus2y ago0 comments

> 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?

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

dongping2y ago· 1 in thread

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.

geysersam2y ago

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.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse