Even worse, our professor showed us a publication where they had to say that their structure was wrong - and several others had used their findings and lost their funding because they weren't able to produce results.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Ouch! That has got to sting.
Don't the publications undergo peer review? That is frustrating and time-wasting venture for those that lost their funding as a result of the publication.
Well, peer-review doesn't necessarily spot everything. Their R values were actually pretty good, it was really bad luck.
Ok. That was an unfortunate turn of event.
Peer review just means they make sure everything checks out at a somewhat superficial level. That is why Reproducibility is the gold standard of evidence.