No, but I had spent a whole year at university trying to replicate experiments in physics lab. I was studying CS but they had too many physics teachers so we had many of the same courses :)
The equipment was abused by decades of students, you had 45 minutes to do the experiment, and the results usually weren't even the correct order of magnitude :) It was stuff like measuring speed of sound, atmospheric pressure, gravity constant, etc.
Still - at least I knew it's the problem with equipment or with me, not with some obscure details that weren't mentioned and that I can't replicate.
> My point is that there are a lot of aspects to most research that aren't easy (or even at all) to replicate
And my point is that it makes publishing everything that can be adjusted that much more important.
Another question - when there's economic and proffesional incentive to fudge the numbers, and no way to check if the numbers were fudged - how do you trust the results?
No, but I had spent a whole year at university trying to replicate experiments in physics lab. I was studying CS but they had too many physics teachers so we had many of the same courses :)
The equipment was abused by decades of students, you had 45 minutes to do the experiment, and the results usually weren't even the correct order of magnitude :) It was stuff like measuring speed of sound, atmospheric pressure, gravity constant, etc.
Still - at least I knew it's the problem with equipment or with me, not with some obscure details that weren't mentioned and that I can't replicate.
> My point is that there are a lot of aspects to most research that aren't easy (or even at all) to replicate
And my point is that it makes publishing everything that can be adjusted that much more important.
Another question - when there's economic and proffesional incentive to fudge the numbers, and no way to check if the numbers were fudged - how do you trust the results?
I wouldn't.