Hacker News Reader

If there are errors in a study's methods that make it unreplicable, then it shouldn't have passed peer review or been published.

View on HN

Then you risk to lose all einstein work unless you have two einsteins at the same time in fact. Genious are scarce. And you could not publish nothing about comets for example, because this would be unreplicable until the next 20 years. Is not so simple as that.

How do you know it's unreplicable until someone tries to replicate it?

I work with principal investigators phd/mds at upenn automating some of their data analysis pipelines.

They have all have secret checklists for bs detection in papers they read. Certain labs set off red flags to them or certain techniques being too fuzzy or easy to mess up.

Every one seems to have their own heuristics, and no one seems to take any article at face value anymore.

I hear PI's say stuff is unreplicable all the time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com