Calibration Nobel xkcd.com/3275/
687 reposts5.2K likes
Calibration Nobel xkcd.com/3275/
687 reposts5.2K likes
I was thinking Felisa Wolfe-Simon, Jodi Switzer Blum, Thomas R. Kulp, Gwyneth W. Gordon, Shelley E. Hoeft, Jennifer Pett-Ridge, John F. Stolz, Samuel M. Webb, Peter K. Weber, Paul C.W. Davies, Ariel D. Anbar and Ronald S. Oremland. www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...
You might want to take notes, @nobelprize.org This is actually a good idea.
Excellent. There should be awards for all the mundane results the confirm or deny previous work. I'm not bitter for having my only publishable results scooped by some journal in Siberia 50 years ago weeks after I verified them but hadn't submitted. Same environment & study subjects, same results. 😬😂
There's a whole peer-reviewed journal for negative results, called Null Scientific nullscientific.com/index.php/home
Semi-related, in archaeology we always report our negative results. Most archaeo (here in the US at least) is for preservation compliance, so it's important to report regardless of +/-. While technically "gray literature" (confidential reports) it's worth at least 1/2 credit, even if not peer-review
There's an event/gamified convention where they try to replicate results 😀 www.npr.org/2026/02/27/n...
Title text: "We would like to once again apologize to Dr. Jones for last year's mistaken announcement. We should really have double-checked the envelope for this award in particular." Alt text: https://explainxkcd.com/3275#Transcript