26 ms·
> You're liable to alienate all of the authors as well as piss off the editorial board for pointing out that they let a mistake slip through. Better rewards fo
by ecocentrik 8y ago
> You're liable to alienate all of the authors as well as piss off the editorial board for pointing out that they let a mistake slip through.
Better rewards for uncovering bad science keeps it from devolving into a political contest. If you're not seeing the right incentives in place, you're either missing something or you're seeing an opportunity to capture some value by implementing those incentives.
- chithanh 8y ago> Better rewards for uncovering bad science keeps it from devolving into a political contest. No. If you increase rewards for uncovering bad science, it will just lead to false accusations. > If you're not seeing the right incentives in place Some people think that the very existence of incentives is the problem here. https://hbr.org/1993/09/why-incentive-plans-cannot-work https://hbr.org/1993/09/why-incentive-plans-cannot-work
- ecocentrik 8y ago> If you increase rewards for uncovering bad science, it will just lead to false accusations. Isn't that what this study suggests is already happening, in as much as false accusations are just more bad science? > Some people think that the very existence of incentives is the problem here. https://hbr.org/1993/09/why-incentive-plans-cannot-work https://hbr.org/1993/09/why-incentive-plans-cannot-work This article is full of opaque generalizations about human behavior that more accurately describes the baser impulses of individuals attempting to game systems they don't understand (participants in psychological experiments) and don't so much reflect the actions of self-conscious professionals with any semblance of dedication to their fields.