3.

· We shouldn’t validate the findings/results of the published article/paper, if the article/paper (published) includes names of famous persons or Universities/Institutions.

3

· We should include the findings/results to make policy, if the article/paper includes names of famous persons or Universities/Institutions.

Of course we need to check results. Whichever way it is. But maybe say the peer reviewers maybe don't say about the results, and it is to say a matter of increasing importance, maybe even reviewers do take into consideration the validity/reproducible results. The paper is then withdrwn and disacredited. I think the consequences of lying or changing results do get "disqualified" or even block any publishing that comes from this person. But if it a mistake they may ask to write letters to apologise. I do think they look severely. Did you do this? My concern is then how can you check if all papers had reproducible results or validated. I supose the answer is who was next to my paper publishing. I do understand it is a matter of increasing consciousness up to the point of testing them themselves. I don't know if they can on every paper. Or even bibligraphical papers. Maybe this is why they ask more people to check the paper. If it is a question on picking your paper how do you make sure? I supose it would be very slow

Yes, I generally validate the published findings through the data (especially open source-secondary data, such as 'SHARE, 'SAGE', 'NFHS' etc.). I agree that it takes a long time to validate the published findings. But we should try to validate at the maximum possible extent or time. In this type of activity, we should try to collaborate or include more authors, they may help to do so.

Also, problem happens more in case of primary data, since we may face either no access or restricted access.

What is the difference between your term validation and everyone else's term reproducible? I suggest there is zero difference. I have often reproduced studies as a way to learn important new research techniques. In my half century of doing so I have found zero cases of fraud. While I do do that work I don't consider myself a god that makes no mistakes. My most important data sets are available to others unless I am somehow restricted. If you read my work I always have a way to supply data and computational methods if I am the primary author. Virtually all major publication outlets and professional societies are in support of this approach. With best wishes, David Booth

@David Eugene Booth, thank you Sir for sharing your views.

Regards,

Vijay

Reproducibility is now very important because of Covid Vaccine development.