8 years ago
4
Half of biomedical research studies don't stand up to scrutiny – and what we need to do about that
It's a problem when much of what winds up in scientific journals isn't replicable, for various reasons. The research community is taking baby steps toward addressing the "reproducibility crisis."
Continue Reading
http://theconversation.com
Join the Discussion
I'm not an academic, but why wouldn't reproducibility be part of the peer review process? Is "checking the math" not part of that review?
The whole goal of research in today's society is to publish it. This is because the more you publish the more likely you are to be funded for the next experiment. An experiment usually takes at least a few years maybe more and therefore cannot be replicated quickly. If you do not want to "get scooped" by someone else in the field you need to publish as soon as you have the results. So basically it would take too long to get anything published if you had it in the peer review process.
I just wanted to add that they may not be able to adequately describe the methodology. If you only have six pages to describe a five year or a multi-study project things will have to be left out.
I do agree with one of their solutions that scientist should share there data and process to be able to replicate it completely.
So the science is not settled....gee, how about that.