Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
Well, if I had a car and some "air tabs", I could - in the spirit of experimental science - do some A-B-A testing to see if they worked. Or if I had a good CFD program, I could do a simulation, and compare the results of the simulation to the real-world testing...
|
Well if I wrote the original paper then I would do that as part of the presentation. However peer review does not require others to do the same, they just basically give the paper a quick read to make sure there aren't any major mistakes (like they say Magnets also contributed) but they don't recreate the experiment or confirm the conclusions.
Papers which are fully peer reviewed get published, and later get retracted. See here.
Retraction Watch | Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process
Also Peer Review is a recent thing - Einstien's major papers were not peer reviewed at all - they were presented and scientists worked on the conclusions of the paper for many years - some were proved (or at least more evidence presented), some not.
So stating that Peer Review is some kind of "gold standard" is obvious woo.