• P03 Locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    9 months ago

    The goal is not to check the work deeply and the tilt is to allowing and also trusting the authors.

    That sounds like the wrong fucking goals then. I push for detailed code reviews all the time, and encourage my peers to ask questions.

    • flatbield@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      9 months ago

      Jounal articles are the start of discussion not the end. They get an idea out there for others to consider test and extend or dispute.

      Keep in mind reviewers are generally unpaid as well.

      Code reviews do not test correctness of code either of if the code is bug free. They also tend to assume good will of the participants. They have similar issues.

      • ArcticDagger@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Further, most of the times, it’s simply infeasible to test the data in-depth. We’re all humans with busy schedules and it is, unfortunately, not trivial to replicate experiments. If a reviewer feels more data is needed to support a claim, they can ask for a follow-up test or experiment, but it has to be within reason