Abstract
A recent paper by Findley et al. (2016) in Comparative Political Studies suggests that the removal of results from a paper may decrease publication bias. However, in the biomedical sciences, a paper without results is not interpretable; therefore, such a solution is not viable for addressing the reproducibility crisis. Instead, Findley et al.’s proposal should form a pre-submission step that enables colleagues and peers to evaluate a paper's experimental design and protocol prior to submission to a journal for regular peer review. Introducing a new, data-free model for peer review would only dilute the efficacy of current models and weaken efforts to improve existing publication practices.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
More From: Pacific Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.