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 - Jul 14 11 comments
by Oui - Jul 14
by eurogreen - Jul 8 7 comments
by ARGeezer - Jul 10 16 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jul 10 24 comments
by gmoke - Jul 4 39 comments
by Oui - Jul 9 8 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jul 5 32 comments
by Bernard - Jul 16
by Frank Schnittger - Jul 1411 comments
by Oui - Jul 14
by ARGeezer - Jul 1016 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jul 1024 comments
by Oui - Jul 98 comments
by eurogreen - Jul 87 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jul 532 comments
by gmoke - Jul 439 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jul 252 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 26106 comments
by Oui - Jun 219 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 2032 comments
by IdiotSavant - Jun 2013 comments
by gmoke - Jun 187 comments
by Oui - Jun 1617 comments