this post was submitted on 29 May 2024
1339 points (95.3% liked)

Science Memes

11278 readers
3863 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
1339
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Fedizen 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I think the sticking point is this: if people can't reproduce it then you missed writing down an important detail and therefore didn't finish step 3.

The elitism is thinking peer review suffices for reproducibility.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I agree with you last point, and I really, really want to with the first.

Sometimes science feels more like an art, for chemistry at least. I suppose the counter-point to this is: if you provide sufficient detail to reproduce but your results are still difficult to reproduce reliably by others, then your process wasn't very robust and should have undergone more development before publishing. Those details may be so minor that you don't even realize that you overlooked something.

[–] Fedizen 1 points 5 months ago

I mean that makes sense. I guess it would be fairer to say that enough should be written down its still usable in tracking down what is missing.