The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
But if the paper is a direct calculation in the framework of a standard model, and that the calculation is correct, then whoever made it should not change the view that it is, indeed, correct.
As for R&R (which was not a paper), it should be ground for dismissing any such paper until data and calculations are made available. They were hardly trade secrets (which should not be a valid excuse anyway): they were national statistics...
Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
"Proper" peer review would require replicating such calculations.
Peer review should verify that the methodology used is not insane, that the paper properly references its data, that the author has performed adequate robustness and specification tests, and that the data is available to other investigators who wish to replicate the analysis.
It is possible to imagine cases where the analysis is based on data that cannot be made available to the general public for ethical reasons, or because doing so would be an unreasonable commercial loss for the source of said data. However, in those cases I would argue that journals should demand full independent replication rather than the much more cursory process of peer review.
The above is already a higher standard than current academic peer review observes, and I don't think going beyond this is realistic - or necessarily a desirable use of the reviewers' time.
Now, there's a whole issue of replication not receiving the recognition it ought to. But that is a slightly different matter, and one I think can be solved with standard governance methods, like formalized KPIs for researchers requiring them to publish two replications for each original result.
Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
by Oui - May 23 13 comments
by Oui - May 23 7 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 17 67 comments
by melo - May 23 7 comments
by ATinNM - May 22 10 comments
by IdiotSavant - May 15 4 comments
by Oui - May 15 38 comments
by gmoke - May 17
by Oui - May 2313 comments
by Oui - May 237 comments
by melo - May 237 comments
by ATinNM - May 2210 comments
by gmoke - May 17
by Frank Schnittger - May 1767 comments
by Oui - May 1538 comments
by IdiotSavant - May 154 comments
by Oui - May 101 comment
by Oui - May 96 comments
by Oui - May 75 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 516 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 419 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 334 comments
by Oui - May 214 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 3016 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 306 comments
by Oui - Apr 289 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 2849 comments
by Oui - Apr 271 comment