3 ms·
Any journal that refuses to publish a failure to replicate research they originally published without proper reasoning should be closed down. That journal shoul
by harry8 10y ago
Any journal that refuses to publish a failure to replicate research they originally published without proper reasoning should be closed down. That journal should have such a reputational black mark next to it that nobody would want to publish there and anyone who already had should be at the door with pitchforks and torchers for tarnishing the researchers' reputations.
If it's was important enough to publish research saying "here's something" then it's important enough to publish properly done research showing "actually, probably it's nothing." By definition. Or it's not science, it's fking marketing and the journal should be treated with the same scientific reverence we reserve for pepsi-cola advertisements from the 1990s.
- cleeus 10y agoYes, but there is just not a way to regulate journals other then by market forces - which seem to fail through information asymmetry about the journal quality and maybe some monopoly inducing positive feedback effects. Maybe law could break the information asymmetry between sellers and buyers of the journals by adding new clauses to the copyrighted works of state-sponsored scientists...
- harry8 10y agoHow about if say, Harvard, Stanford, MIT & Caltech made a pronouncement that from now none of their academics should submit research for publication in journal X on the grounds that journal X lacks commitment to being a scientific journal and it would diminish their reputations as academic institutions to have any association with that journal. Then canceled their libraries subscriptions to that journal in public, demanded a full refund and generally made a fuss in the newspapers. The NYT would print the fuss. I think that would change the dynamic of Scientific Journals pretty quickly. Pick one of the worst, get the evidence together, ring your opposite number at a couple of places that have similar numbers of nobel prize winners and go right at the rubbish journals with the wrecking ball having the reputation of being a place where the world's best research is being conducted.
- Someone 10y agoI somewhat disagree. They still should have the right/plight to vet the failure to replicate on quality. Without that, everyone and his dog would have publications in Nature and Science tomorrow.
- TJSomething 10y agoI believe objections on the grounds of low quality would count as "proper reasoning."