|
|
|
|
|
|
by BeetleB
3528 days ago
|
|
|
>You and/or your publishers are terrible human beings. Eh? Not sure why. Because we have a list of papers we don't believe? It would be naive to believe everything that is published. I don't like the notion of withholding information, and personally I would not like to accept any paper that does that, but I'm merely stating the norm in the field. You still have to contend with journal size restrictions. A paper in Physical Review Letters needs to be less than 3 pages. You simply cannot put in enough detail for replication in there. Nature has a page limit of 5. |
|
|
1. propagating falsehoods, or flaws in published work without correcting or refuting their validity, claims etc. by your strong admission that everyone knows of such work (which is subsequently used and cited) yet "completely wrong" there must be so much crap getting published. but there is disinclination to do anything about it
2. witholding of information necessary for reproducing results of experiments as a means of discouraging co-operation with peers you view as rivals or adversaries.
The second is really serious because it effectively subverts the scientific method, undermining scientific consensus and progress. That these are "norms in the field" means nothing save for everybody's indifference and lack of cooperation.
Is the above correct?