= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
James_Miller comments on Open Thread, May 25 - May 31, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (301)
And this is OK if the fraud rate is low, and unacceptable if it's high.
I doubt this happens to more than a tiny number of papers, although probably the more important the result the more likely it will get reviewed.
If a paper shows all its working, a competent reviewer can judge whether the work as reported is good. How will they detect that the report is a fabrication? All the reviewer sees is the story the author is telling. The reviewer may notice inconsistencies, such as repeated use of the same figures, or data with an implausible distribution, but they will generally have no way to compare the story with the actual facts of what happened in the lab.
Detecting and preventing fraud is a good thing, but I don't think peer review is a place where much of it can happen.