Very interesting (and timely) discussion on Andrew Gelman's (Columbia--statistics) blog concerning review standards and practices at top journals. The punch-line is that even if all journals committed to a "replication" requirement prior to accepting a paper for publication, what is meant by "replication" remains contested. While I strongly suspect journal variation across disciplines (and perhaps even within discipline variation), I'd be curious to see a current inventory of journal practices on this front.
Recent Comments