Plasmyd does this via crowdsourcing, it lets users comment on papers so that researchers can point out anomalies or post their inability to reproduce the same results. It also gives the author a chance to explain their work.
It is frustratingly difficult to get biomedical scientists to openly discuss the work in their field. PLoS tried to have discussion sections to papers, and Nature has tried various approaches as well. Neither have worked. I looked-up my favorite topic (a popular one) on Plasmyd, and found 20 papers, none of which had a single comment associated with it.
It's honestly a vast waste of intellectual potential, I wish I knew the solution!
Bilal from Science Exchange here. Definitely agree that Plasmyd is a valuable service. We feel this Initiative operates in complement, providing a mechanism for independent validation.
Comments
Plasmyd does this via crowdsourcing, it lets users comment on papers so that researchers can point out anomalies or post their inability to reproduce the same results. It also gives the author a chance to explain their work.
It is frustratingly difficult to get biomedical scientists to openly discuss the work in their field. PLoS tried to have discussion sections to papers, and Nature has tried various approaches as well. Neither have worked. I looked-up my favorite topic (a popular one) on Plasmyd, and found 20 papers, none of which had a single comment associated with it.
It's honestly a vast waste of intellectual potential, I wish I knew the solution!
Bilal from Science Exchange here. Definitely agree that Plasmyd is a valuable service. We feel this Initiative operates in complement, providing a mechanism for independent validation.