You are reading a single comment by @NotThamesWater and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I'm no scientist. I would have thought that validation is central to its integrity though.
NotThamesWater-
The validation comes from the repeatability of the method used. Doing the same test should have the same result. What the result means is separate and in this case it looks to be the results were manipulated and not picked up by the peer review.
-
Unfortunately as part of the scientific method, peer review often relies on a person to look at a fairly dense piece of information in minuscule detail in their spare time, for free with normally short turnarounds. It’s no surprise if things like image manipulation aren’t picked upon unless they’re jumping out the page
Sumo
jupiz
Isn't the scientific method just hypothesis, test, analyse, conclude etc. with emphasis on repeatable methods. The way results are published and critiqued is separate?