You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.
We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.
-
Nice expansion of the terse second argument of my response. +1.Captain Emacs– Captain Emacs2021-05-31 15:52:01 +00:00Commented May 31, 2021 at 15:52
-
2@CaptainEmacs Yes, a few answers (like yours, +1) touched on this, but I felt the presentation could be inverted - (ie: frame challenge - we DO repeat important results, with caveats that garbage tends to get ignored). The fallacy in academia is usually to fail to appreciate just how much research is not particularly useful, whether it's correct or not. I think that clouds the perception of how repeating experiments works.J...– J...2021-05-31 16:03:16 +00:00Commented May 31, 2021 at 16:03
-
1Agreed - that's why I said "it reminds me" rather than "it's like" :-) On the other hand, I detest having to give significance statements as a reviewer, as they pretend to be objective whereas only the future can be. Even Adleman from RSA seems to have thought their paper was quite a minor result with no major relevance.Captain Emacs– Captain Emacs2021-05-31 16:26:07 +00:00Commented May 31, 2021 at 16:26
-
5This answer matches my experience. My group normally replicate at least one or two plots from a paper we are building on, just to check our own data/equations/algorithms are good. Once we actually couldn't replicate part of a plot and we did discover an oversight in the other paper's methodology. It was minor, but important enough to mention in our paper.Clumsy cat– Clumsy cat2021-05-31 18:52:57 +00:00Commented May 31, 2021 at 18:52
-
1Your comment goes hand in hand with the pther answer academia.stackexchange.com/a/168411/128758 "Because a culture of 'Argument from Authority' has built up that regards peer-reviewed journal papers as a scientific 'gold standard', rather than a work-in-progress in need of verification."EarlGrey– EarlGrey2021-06-02 08:44:20 +00:00Commented Jun 2, 2021 at 8:44
- Correct minor typos or mistakes
- Clarify meaning without changing it
- Add related resources or links
- Always respect the author’s intent
- Don’t use edits to reply to the author
-
create code fences with backticks ` or tildes ~
```
like so
``` -
add language identifier to highlight code
```python
def function(foo):
print(foo)
``` - put returns between paragraphs
- for linebreak add 2 spaces at end
- _italic_ or **bold**
- quote by placing > at start of line
- to make links (use https whenever possible)
<https://example.com>[example](https://example.com)<a href="https://example.com">example</a>
A tag is a keyword or label that categorizes your question with other, similar questions. Choose one or more (up to 5) tags that will help answerers to find and interpret your question.
Use tags that describe what your question is about, not what it merely relates to. For example almost every question on this site is eventually related to research, but only questions about performing research should be tagged research.
Use tags describing circumstances only if those circumstances are essential to your question. For example, if you have a question about citations that came up during writing a thesis but might as well have arisen during writing a paper, do not tag it with thesis.
- complete the sentence: my question is about...
- use tags that describe things or concepts that are essential, not incidental to your question
- favor using existing popular tags
- read the descriptions that appear below the tag
If your question is primarily about a topic for which you can't find a tag:
- combine multiple words into single-words with hyphens (e.g. graduate-admissions), up to a maximum of 35 characters
- creating new tags is a privilege; if you can't yet create a tag you need, then post this question without it, then ask the community to create it for you