A scientific journal like Environmental Health strives to publish research that is useful within the field covered by the journal's scope, in this case, public health. Useful research is more likely to make a difference. However, in many, if not most cases, the usefulness of an article can be difficult to ascertain until after its publication. Although replication is often thought of as a requirement for research to be considered valid, this criterion is retrospective and has resulted in a tendency toward inertia in environmental health research. An alternative viewpoint is that useful work is "stable", i.e., not likely to be soon contradicted. We present this alternative view, which still relies on science being consensual, although pointing out that it is not the same as replicability, while not in contradiction. We believe that viewing potential usefulness of research reports through the lens of stability is a valuable perspective.

中文翻译：

---

什么是有用的研究？好的，坏的和稳定的。

像《环境卫生》这样的科学杂志致力于发表在该杂志的范围（在本例中为公共卫生）所涵盖的领域内有用的研究。有用的研究更有可能发挥作用。但是，在许多（如果不是大多数情况下）情况下，直到发布后才能确定其有用性。尽管通常认为复制是使研究被认为有效的必要条件，但该标准具有追溯力，并导致环境健康研究趋于惯性。另一种观点是有用的工作是“稳定的”，即不太可能很快就矛盾。我们提出了这种替代观点，尽管这种观点与可复制性并不相同，但并不矛盾，但它仍然依赖科学的共识。