cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/514928

Reproducibility is an important aspect of science; reproducibility allows for alternate viewpoints; improvements in the referrant study; and verification that the referrant study is actually possible.

It could just be my perspective when reading studies; but I’m not seeing much scientists actively attempt to reproduce the result of the referrant study.

EDIT: or I’m just not seeing it somehow.

  • SalamanderA
    link
    42 years ago

    In my field (physical chemistry) we build on each other’s work. We often measure similar or even the same systems, and apply other people’s models to our own. We are usually not going to go out of our way to re-do the experiment that someone else has already done, but when we do our own experiments we confirm whether our observations agree with what we expect based on what is already published in the literature. If they don’t, we might actually try to replicate those previous experiments, and at the very least we will point out the inconsistencies in our publications. Through this process “bad” results erode over time.