|
|
|
|
|
|
by jakewins
500 days ago
|
|
|
How is that correction mechanism supposed to work though? Do you mean the peer review process? Friends in big labs tell me they often find issues with competitor lab papers, not necessarily nefarious but like “ah no they missed thing x here so their conclusion is incorrect”.. but the effect of that is just they discard the paper in question. In other words: the labs I’m aware of filter papers themselves on the “inbound” path in journal clubs, creating a vetted stream of papers they trust or find interesting for themselves.. but that doesn’t provide any immediate signal to anyone else about the quality of the papers |
|
|
No. I meant somebody else publishes the opposite.
One of the things you learn if you are a world expert in a tiny area ( PhD student ) is that half the papers published in your area are wrong/misleading in someway ( not necessarily knowingly - just they might not know some niche problem with the experimental technique they used ).
I agree peer review is far from perfect, and there is problem in that a paper being wrong is still a paper in your publication stats, but in the end you'd hope the truth will out.
People got all excited about cold fusion - then cold reality set in - I don't think the initial excitement about it was a bad thing - sometimes it takes other people to help you understand how you've fooled yourself.