When peer review can find fraud, should it? Also, when a journal can find out whether a source for data is a reliable source, should it? The only thing I can bring to this is experience in OSS review.
-
-
-
During review I would at least try to see if the code was from a different project and if so, was it attributed / licensed appropriately, if there were existing issues, etc.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
I guess it marks the time to start taking a more thorough 'data validation' explicitly into scope of the reviews. This pandemic seems to introduce new adversaries. From my field, (open source) software development and security, I think I see remarkable analogies.
End of conversation
-
-
-
Pre-publication peer review is not really meant to do anything...other than to provide a false veneer of reliability.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
But in this case, considering the results that go against every other study in the world, questioning the data should have been logical. Same rate of smokers everywhere in the world is a red flag. Acquiring such data so quickly is a red flag.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I worry that if we’re all looking for fraud when we review nothing is ever going to get done. Not bc of fraud but bc were all really skeptical to begin with
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.