nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
→kidding right?: There is evidence
:Woah!!! PoV. How about "(2) Results are not supported by results from other researchers and cannot be explained according to our current understanding. Therefore, there is a good chance that the results are erroneous". If the data are good enough, they will be published. There is no incentive on a journal to suppress research just because it doesn't fit the paradigm. The only incentive is for the journal to not publish high-profile research which is later proved to be wrong, which is embarrassing for the journal. [[User:Aloysius|Aloysius]] 09:51, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Woah!!! PoV. How about "(2) Results are not supported by results from other researchers and cannot be explained according to our current understanding. Therefore, there is a good chance that the results are erroneous". If the data are good enough, they will be published. There is no incentive on a journal to suppress research just because it doesn't fit the paradigm. The only incentive is for the journal to not publish high-profile research which is later proved to be wrong, which is embarrassing for the journal. [[User:Aloysius|Aloysius]] 09:51, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::There is evidence that journals ''do'' decline publishing ideas that go against the currently-popular paradigm. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]]