[dudeinjapan]

It's a "win" for science in the sense that the truth was finally revealed.

It's "loss" in the sense that our truth determining apparatus (e.g. peer review) appears to be highly unreliable, and a massive, unquantified amount of bullshit research has already passed it and is actively being used as a foundation for subsequent research.

[trogdor]

Peer review is supposed to review the quality of the research. It is not supposed to validate the findings, let alone detect fraud.

[dudeinjapan]

So umm... I'm glad that peer review determined this room temperature superconductor paper was excellently researched. Also, it was a complete lie.

[dekhn]

Realistically, we can't reduce false positives to absolutely zero without giving up on some True Positives (sensitivity/specificity tradeoff).

Nature intentionally plays loose with potentially world-changing discoveries. It probably makes sense to have some journals that publish with fairly high rates of (post-hoc determined) false positives, simply to move the fields forward more quickly.

[dudeinjapan]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (and validation!)