|
|
|
|
|
|
by epistasis
4607 days ago
|
|
|
>Work often gets cited without being either replicated or invalidated. I'm not sure why you're bringing up this fact, which is not at all inconsistent with my comment. What's your implication? >Do you do any kind of research? You seem to have an unrealistically rosy perception of the scientific process as it happens concretely. In the past decade, I've spent probably 70% of my time on scientific research. At this moment I'm procrastinating from writing a letter of support on a grant. What, in particular, do you think I'm unrealistically rosy about? |
|
|
In that case I may have misunderstood your point. What I mean is that, for a paper with 100+ citations (which, in some fields, is not rare), most of them are not verified by the authors.
> In the past decade, I've spent probably 70% of my time on scientific research. At this moment I'm procrastinating from writing a letter of support on a grant. What, in particular, do you think I'm unrealistically rosy about?
The self-correcting nature of the process is very slow in most cases. Bad results end up being forgotten for minor findings, but for things of mild interest, it may linger far longer.