Peer review is also not part of the scientific method. It's nice, but it's not strictly part of the method.
It may be more accurate to suggest that repeatability is part of the scientific method. But even that is not strictly true.
Consider, the single longest running scientific work was not repeatable, and was not shared with anyone outside the cadre of people doing it. Around 3000 years ago, a secretive caste of astrologers/scribes watched the heavens, and recorded their observations for several centuries. They did not publish their findings, thus making them anecdotal (yes, that's what anecdotal means, just that it wasn't published). The exact circumstances and variables were never repeatable, due to the movements of the celestial bodies, precession, etc.
Similarly, the UQ pitch drop experiment, having not yet completed, has not been repeated. But it's still an entirely valid scientific experiment.
It may be more accurate to suggest that repeatability is part of the scientific method. But even that is not strictly true.
Consider, the single longest running scientific work was not repeatable, and was not shared with anyone outside the cadre of people doing it. Around 3000 years ago, a secretive caste of astrologers/scribes watched the heavens, and recorded their observations for several centuries. They did not publish their findings, thus making them anecdotal (yes, that's what anecdotal means, just that it wasn't published). The exact circumstances and variables were never repeatable, due to the movements of the celestial bodies, precession, etc.
Similarly, the UQ pitch drop experiment, having not yet completed, has not been repeated. But it's still an entirely valid scientific experiment.