Paper result validation and the scientific method in earth science - This question was asked by me without knowing the rules of meta ES SE. It was based on a inadequate understanding of what meta.ESSE was all about. I originally wanted to ask it here (i.e. as a "internal" discussion among the experts here) and when I was told that meta.ESSE was not such a forum I did not want to have it on the main ESSE site. In the past none of my questions have been closed and none of my answers have been flagged (or downvoted so far) and hence I see no reason why I should have a closed question against my record. So this was one of those mistakes that should not have happened.

I understand that the question has three answers and that is why I want to know the consequences of deleting the question. I am not sure how that will affect the rep of the the three people(perhaps they may need to consent ?) who have answered my question but some clarification will help.


Your question was fairly well received with 7 upvotes, 0 downvotes and mixed reviews (but ultimately closed). Of those that participated in the review process, 2 voted to leave your question open after it was nominated to be closed. It is also worth noting that it currently has 2 re-open votes.

Look at some of the comments your post received:

This is a very interesting question, but it feels like it's inviting a discussion — you're only going to get people's opinions — and there is no 'answer'. Journals have policies, enforced or not, and individual researchers, readers, and reviewers have their preferences. I don't know, but this feels like the wrong venue for the conversation.


I feel that points 2 and 4 ("which occurrence is more common" and "how does this work in Earth Sciences") should be on-topic: essentially it's asking "what are the norms for reproducibility in earth science", which at least in theory should be possible to answer objectively

And your response to them:

while the current answers are fine( more like individual experiences/suggestions) the kind of answer that I want is what is presented in that question asked in academia.SE. In other words an objective assessment of what it is in ES.

The comments by others indicate the premise of your question is good (and it is), but as worded it invites opinion. However, they provide suggestions (e.g. focus on points 2 and 4) on how to address this and even you acknowledge that you want objective assessment.

Take this as an opportunity! Question that are "on hold" are signposts that mean "please edit me!". You have some direction on making the question more objective and suitable for re-opening.

Rather than delete this question, edit it! Fix the issues and specifically ask for objective metrics or what the current standard of reproducablity is in earth science. Even better if you can narrow it down to specific disciplines within earth science. Once the question is edited and suitable then re-open it. This question already has 2 re-open votes and if you edit the question address why people closed it in the first place, you should be able to get it back open.

  • $\begingroup$ the question has been edited. I am not sure if it meets the objective standards now. $\endgroup$
    – gansub
    Sep 18 '15 at 16:26

You can request deletion by flagging the question for moderator attention and explaining to a moderator why you think it should be deleted. If it were to be deleted, the people who had answered the question would lose the rep that the answers provided to them.

But you don't have to delete it - you could simply leave it as a closed question. So far as I'm aware this doesn't "count against" you in any meaningful way. If you are truly embarrassed about it, but do not wish to cost other people their rep, you could ask moderators to remove your name from it.

Note that in both cases, asking the mods to do something does not necessarily mean that it will happen - you'll need to explain why.


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .