Should journal reviewers of highly ranked journals be obligated to experimentally reproduce the findings of a research paper in their own lab before making a decision, particularly when their decisions were made primarily on theoretical arguments?
Athanasius Daud Dube
Surely reviewers decide based on the Scientific soundness of the Hypothesis, project structure, scientific methodology, statistical analysis and references from Level 1 and 2 evidence: Other researchers may then duplicate this work to validate or disprove it:: NOT necessarily the reviewers
0 votes
0 thanks
Abdulhadi Albaser
Athanasius Daud Dube Thank you for your response. I understand that reviewers assess various aspects of a research paper, as you mentioned. However, my question specifically addresses situations where reviewers:
- Reject a paper primarily based on theoretical arguments.
- Insist on novel, unexpected findings that may challenge existing theories. In such cases, shouldn't reviewers be obligated to, or at least strongly encouraged to, attempt some level of experimental validation in their own lab before rejecting a paper? This would ensure that theoretical objections are not based on unfounded assumptions or misinterpretations of the data.
0 votes
0 thanks
- Badges
- Science topic
More Abdulhadi Albaser's questions See All
Similar questions and discussions