Replace peer review with “peer replication” (2021) (blog.everydayscientist.com)

Article summary

The article proposes replacing traditional peer review with 'peer replication', where preprints are sent to other labs to replicate the findings before publication. This approach aims to increase the reliability of scientific research by verifying the results through independent replication. The author suggests that this method would encourage scientists to share their experimental procedures and data, fostering collaboration and reducing fraud. However, some fields, such as Earth Sciences, may not be suitable for this approach due to the uniqueness of observations or the difficulty of replicating experiments.

Main themes

• peer replication
• scientific reliability
• research verification
• peer review
• replication challenges
• incentivizing replication
• scientific progress
• research validation

What commenters say

• Replication is not always possible or practical, especially in fields like astronomy or Earth Sciences where unique events or observations are involved.
• Peer review should focus on readability and comprehensibility, rather than replication, as some experiments are too costly or complex to replicate.
• Barriers to publishing replication studies should be lowered, and replication should be incentivized as a valuable contribution to scientific progress.
• The current peer review system prioritizes novelty over replication, which can lead to a lack of replication and verification of results.
• Replication can be time-consuming and costly, but it is essential for verifying the results and increasing the reliability of scientific research.
• Some commenters suggest that a 'replicability review' or a 'methodology map' could be a more realistic and feasible approach to increasing replication and verification.
• Others argue that peer replication is not a viable solution for all fields and that traditional peer review still has value in ensuring the quality and validity of research.
• There is a need for a balance between encouraging replication and acknowledging the limitations and challenges of replicating certain types of research.