> It's the expected state of affairs when you're working with imperfect, noisy techniques, and trying tease out subtle phenomena.
Sounds like a ridiculously low standard. If your paper is in principle unreplicable, then I only have your word for evidence of what you're claiming. This is not science. Even journalists are held to a higher standard.
Sounds like a ridiculously low standard. If your paper is in principle unreplicable, then I only have your word for evidence of what you're claiming. This is not science. Even journalists are held to a higher standard.