This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.

The original was posted on /r/space by /u/Mighty-Lobster on 2023-08-02 05:47:24.

In this forum we get to see lots of results about recently published papers with exciting or surprising results. I just wanted to say something quick about what it means that an article is “Published”.

“Published” does not mean that the work was confirmed. It is not the job of the journal or the referee to verify that the science in the paper is correct. This is a good thing. Not only is it impractical to re-do the observations and the analysis before the paper is published, but consider this:

Do you want to have a system where it is possible to publish ideas that run against common wisdom but later turn out to be right?

If so, then you must accept that most of the time common wisdom will prevail and the idea will turn out to be wrong. Therefore, the job of the journal or referee is not to agree or disagree, but to ensure a minimum level of quality so we don’t get flooded with a mountain of junk science. As a referee, I am asked to ensure that the paper is clear, that the methods are described well enough that someone else could try to replicate the results, etc. Here, I have attached an image of the questionnaire that I get from Monthly Notices:

The questionnaire is like 0.1% of the work. Most of the work is writing the referee report. But I hope this gives you a sense of the sorts of things we’re thinking about. Don’t get me wrong, we WILL reject a paper if it is trivial or duplicative or if the methods are flawed. But that doesn’t happen very often. Most of the truly junk science never reaches my desk because the journal can catch those.

Anyway, I hope this is informative. I suggest you think of published papers as kind of like listening to a conversation between astronomers. This is how we communicate ideas and the publication process is vital to make sure that those ideas are communicated clearly.