WUWT
But will they take the next step and more actively police published
research and denote when it is not replicable? There needs to be an
accessible list of papers that sits between valid, replicated studies
and the full blown Retraction Watch . I highly doubt that most journals
are willing to self-police themselves, so just as Retraction Watch has
come into being, perhaps there needs to be be a web site that aggregates
the list of all papers published each year and allows researchers who
are able to replicate results to make some fanfare when they are able to
remove a paper from the list, since replications are usually quiet
affairs.
In the face of the hockey shticks, 97%s, and PAL reviews, combined
with researchers refusing to release data “because you want to find
fault with it” or just handing their hard drives over to their dogs to
chew on, what percentage of AGW-related studies should be listed as
unreplicable, perhaps even nonredeemable? "
No comments:
Post a Comment