|
|
|
|
|
|
by soiltype
150 days ago
|
|
|
That feels arbitrary as a measure of quality. Why isn't new research simply devalued and replication valued higher? "Dr Alice failed to reproduce 20 would-be headline-grabbing papers, preventing them from sucking all the air out of the room in cancer research" is something laudable, but we're not lauding it. |
|
|