Hacker News Reader

Comment by nxzero | Hacker News Reader

Is there any research that show being peer reviewed in fact makes a difference? General speaking, I would think research should just speak for itself.

View on HN

Generally speaking, you think... well that's nice. Meanwhile, in the world of the scientific method, the issue is that everyone needs to know that you didn't just write something down for fun or profit. If your results can't be replicated... thbbpt.

> If your results can't be replicated

Results aren't replicated during peer review, are they?

Not necessarily, but at least the methods can be evaluated to see how likely it is that they can be. A black box with, "Trust us, here's what we found" is weak as hell, unless you're still into Pons and Fleischmann I guess.

Strange that you believe any science that's not reproducible is science. Or assume that if the science is not reproduced, it's sciencifically valid.

Science is not a singlar effort, nor is peer review without replication.

Please question your assumptions about what science really is.

Strange that you believe any science that's not reproducible is science. Or assume that if the science is not reproduced, it's sciencifically valid.

That's the exact opposite of what I said. What's wrong with you?

What did I say that's conflicted?

Try reading the thread closely, looking for nuances you may have missed.

Depends on the publication, I believe. There was a comment here a bit ago where someone pointed out that such journals do exist (for example, Organic Synthesis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_Syntheses ).

The elephant in the room with science across the board is that replication studies are not an attractive way to pull in grant money. It's a big problem!

So given how little work is done reproducing findings, there is minimal value?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com