Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

"repeated" in this context is not incorrect, but i think "replicated" is perhaps a better choice.

That aside, i think repeatability is a much more useful goal (rather than "has been repeated"). For one thing, meaningful replication must be done by someone else; for another, it's difficult and time consuming; the original investigator has no control over whether and when another in the community chooses to attempt replication of his result. What is within their control is an explanation of the methodology they relied on to produce their scientific result in sufficient detail to enable efficient repetition by the relevant community. To me that satisfies the competence threshold; good science isn't infallible science, and attempts to replicate it might fail, but some baseline frequency for ought to be acceptable.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact