Peer-Review and Peer-Replication seem like different avenues. In one we have citations and references and recommendations and acknowledgements or dedications. In the other we have copy-edits, highlighting, a priori's, and conclusions that can combine, and a sense that if time had consistency then the experimental procedure ought to have consistency across its replicability. That no scientist should believe what they can't replicate themselves.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Papers
More Jack Don McLovin's questions See All
Similar questions and discussions