The original original idea is based on a study about those wolves in captivity that was never peer reviewed/reproduced and was generally confirmed to be absolutely bogus bullshit.
…the book was very much so peer reviewed even at its publishment, the issue was:
-that ‘the being kept in captivity’ was not underlined to the point and via words where layman could understand universally/ be in the point of deniability for spreading nonsense
-was a great fucking book, loads of people read it before the author could actually withdrew it (he immediately started pleading with the publisher once it surfaced) and make it more explicit
It should, but it does not always require that, at least for some soft sciences. In my very niche field (German grammar and German language instruction) studies are almost never reproduced as part of the peer review process, though it is totally normal for people to publish new papers that are essentially reproductions of existing studies.
No, the peers do not necessarily have to spend a decade to repeat the study as there is no singular thesis, nor any experiment… They just look it over while playing with their existent or non-existent beards and if its their speciality then give their names that ‘yes, this checks out’
The original original idea is based on a study about those wolves in captivity that was never peer reviewed/reproduced and was generally confirmed to be absolutely bogus bullshit.
Oh I know, I’m just making mock of dudes who are being hella weird
…the book was very much so peer reviewed even at its publishment, the issue was: -that ‘the being kept in captivity’ was not underlined to the point and via words where layman could understand universally/ be in the point of deniability for spreading nonsense -was a great fucking book, loads of people read it before the author could actually withdrew it (he immediately started pleading with the publisher once it surfaced) and make it more explicit
Thanks for the explanation, always assumed it hadn’t been peer reviewed because that requires replication of the experiment most often.
It should, but it does not always require that, at least for some soft sciences. In my very niche field (German grammar and German language instruction) studies are almost never reproduced as part of the peer review process, though it is totally normal for people to publish new papers that are essentially reproductions of existing studies.
No, the peers do not necessarily have to spend a decade to repeat the study as there is no singular thesis, nor any experiment… They just look it over while playing with their existent or non-existent beards and if its their speciality then give their names that ‘yes, this checks out’