Replication of results
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ed Poor (talk | contribs) at 02:08, December 16, 2010. It may differ significantly from current revision.
Replication of results is essential for scientific progress. If a scientist makes a claim, and writes it up in the proper format for publication, it may pass peer review, but this does not make it valid. It might get some media play, but it's not going to be added to textbooks on the high school or university level unless other scientists are convinced.
What is most convincing to a scientists is seeing for himself. If it's an experiment which can be performed again, other scientists can satisfy their curiosity by doing the experiment over themselves. If they get the same results, that's a confidence booster. If their results are sufficiently different to shed doubt on the the original scientific paper, then we get a scientific dispute.
- ... peer-review is by no means proof against bad science or incorrect findings. It is more of an extended editorial process. The real test of published science comes later, when the broader community attempts to replicate results. [1]