A question about science

[Windevoid]

I have an important question.

I had a Mass Media class back in high school. And (I think it was this class, It may have been a different one), they were having mock trials. In these mock trials, they did something they called
"cross-referencing". This seemed to mean that one of the people of the court staff or one of the parties checks each person's story for self-consistency and sense. In other words, they make sure a party's claims don't conflict with their other claims.

I'm no longer sure this happened at all.

But my question is this:

Has "cross-referencing" ever been done to science?

[Delta1212]

It's called "peer-review." It's a requirement for being published in any reputable scientific journal.

 

And I think you mean "cross-examining" as "cross-referencing" means something else.

[swansont]

Has "cross-referencing" ever been done to science?

Have you not been paying attention to your own threads? What do you think we are doing by asking you for predictions, or evidence of your claims? Hint: it's not some kind of hazing meant to make you type until your fingers cramp. It's so we can cross-check your claims with existing results!

 

Yes it happens. It happens all the frikkin' time.

[Delta1212]

Have you not been paying attention to your own threads? What do you think we are doing by asking you for predictions, or evidence of your claims? Hint: it's not some kind of hazing meant to make you type until your fingers cramp. It's so we can cross-check your claims with existing results!

Yes it happens. It happens all the frikkin' time.

One might even say that the scientific method is purposely structured as it is for the explicit purpose of making such cross checking as easy as it can possibly be made.

[ajb]

It also happens more informally when talking with other scientists. You often discuss things together and this can really help you pin things down.

[Bignose]

Can't tell if serious question or just trolling. ..

[Unity+]

I'm no longer sure this happened at all.

So, you claimed something did happen and then saying you don't know whether it actually happened...

[Windevoid]

The two academic journals threw out my two papers without doing experiments or peer-reviewing.

You might say it is just about my papers being mistaken somehow.

 

But I don't think they're mistaken (except the part with the capacitor that was actually a thermistor). But the other ten or so experiments still stand in my opinion.

 

Even if they're all misinterpreted, the important thing here is to notice that they can throw it out or reject submissions at all without testing them or peer reviewing them.

 

They didn't say my experiments failed or anything or why. Just that my paper was rejected. I think the peer review stage was listed as after acceptance.

Edited August 31, 2013 by Windevoid

[Klaynos]

The two academic journals threw out my two papers without doing experiments or peer-reviewing.

It probably failed the editors peer review, the initial cross examination found fundamental flaws or it didn't present enough to be cross examined.

[ajb]

I think the peer review stage was listed as after acceptance.

The editors are part of the peer review process. They either either thought that the work is not suitable for their journal or that it is rather obviously flawed.

[swansont]

If you are contradicting millions of examples where standard theory was confirmed to work, then cross-checking did occur. The editors are undoubtedly already familiar with the existence of these examples.