3 ms·
My hunch here is that the statistical tidbit the article mentions is a result of an abundance of negativity held behind closed doors, prior to publication. Sci
by cryoshon 11y ago
My hunch here is that the statistical tidbit the article mentions is a result of an abundance of negativity held behind closed doors, prior to publication.
Scientists typically present their findings to other scientists pre-and-post literature publication, building relationships among and within research groups. Aside from building connections between researchers, these type of presentations are one of the pillars of the scientific community. The question and answer sessions during and after these presentations frequently quite brutal (though eminently professional, as science is a formal and polite affair), with projects and hypotheses being verbally torn apart with the author on stage to gibber whatever defense they can rally while in the headlights. This happens to everyone, from the greenest grad student to the gnarled director of multiple programs.
These kinds of routine tearing-down have a negative impact on people's psyches (you will find many scientists to be humble and self-effacing) but drastically increase the quality of science handed off for publication. Instead of researcher A giving researcher B a negative citation when his results are contradictory, A may have told B in person or via email that the results B recently presented don't click with their research. This won't stop publication of contradictory results per se, but it will probably force someone to do clarifying experiments-- a good thing that advances the body of knowledge.
A negative citation is probably reserved for people who aren't connected to each other, or who have found a new spin on historical results-- in my guess, probably from the rear frame of what's considered "current" (up to 3 years prior for immunology).
- beloch 11y agoAbout the most negative, confrontational thing that happens in science is when a journal editor unwittingly picks a referee for a paper from a group that is in direct competition with the authors of the paper, and that referee happens to be a twat. They're supposed to be anonymous, but they often reveal themselves through various idiosyncrasies. Experimental groups often wind up working on fairly similar things, exchanging personnel, etc.. Sometimes these groups will cooperate on some things and divy up other things so that they're not stepping on each others toes too much. This works when the people in charge are capable of getting along. However, there are usually a few people in any given area that don't play well with others. These are the people that bring the public tear-down drama to conferences and the people who will obstinately race other groups to be the first to publish, even if that means using unethical means, such as filibustering the peer-review process or outright sabotaging it if they're chosen as referees. Most people are decent, but there are a small number of assholes uniformly distributed everywhere.
- cryoshon 11y agoI've never heard of the review fillibuster before, that sounds really anti-Science and really shitty. Science can get super political to be sure... but the public tear-down is part of the scientific process despite frequently being political posturing.
- planfaster 11y agoNah, that's barely anti-Science. Anti-Science is when you go to jail for doing nothing but testing for the presence of cyanide in the walls of the USSR-reconstructed morgue/air-shelter in Auschwitz.
- JorgeGT 11y agoMany journals now allow you to explicitly name researchers you would prefer not to be selected as reviewers for your submitted paper.
- montecarl 11y agoThe most confrontational thing I see are published comments on published papers. My PhD adviser published a paper, then a guy commented on it, then he wrote a reply to the comment, then the guy wrote a reply to the reply to the comment! The final reply ended up with some pretty crazy stuff in it. Here is my favorite quotes from his reply: Or is it the other question, that it is “forbidden” to modify the holy NEB method of Prof. Dr. [Prof. Name]? We propose to read the old Hamlet: “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” Yes. He quoted Hamlet!
- JorgeGT 11y agoNot only quoted, but cited! Priceless :_) [10] W. Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act 1, scene 5.