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 Frank Schnittger - Feb 14 20 comments
by IdiotSavant - Feb 14
by Oui - Feb 11 10 comments
by Oui - Feb 7 12 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 31 53 comments
by Oui - Jan 31 10 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 30 14 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 29 10 comments
by Oui - Feb 171 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 1420 comments
by IdiotSavant - Feb 14
by Oui - Feb 1110 comments
by Oui - Feb 10
by Oui - Feb 811 comments
by Oui - Feb 712 comments
by Oui - Jan 3110 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 3153 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 3014 comments
by Oui - Jan 298 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 2910 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 2558 comments
by Oui - Jan 2512 comments
by Oui - Jan 2416 comments
by Oui - Jan 2311 comments
by Oui - Jan 2326 comments
by Oui - Jan 22
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 1869 comments