4 ms·

I mean, I guess its a mild problem? Its no different than pulling a quote from a pay to publish article though, the only difference is the amount of cachet thes

I mean, I guess its a mild problem? Its no different than pulling a quote from a pay to publish article though, the only difference is the amount of cachet these journals have. Science/Nature/etc are broadcast journals. They're for publishing results that people outside your field would find interesting. Typically these are new and flashy results and sometimes theyre slightly suspect. Mostly theyre not. A refutation or null result typically isn't interesting to the audience of these journals- nor should it be.

justinclift 7y ago
> ... nor should it be. This bit I don't really understand. If someone is interested in X, why would they be ok with carrying around what turns out to (likely be) incorrect knowledge about it? That approach is more equated with (say) Wired, who are famously inaccurate in many details "for a good story". eg Wired is entertainment. That's not what Science (the journal) is supposed to be about though. Or is it?
- Misdicorl 7y ago
  Yes, believing false knowledge is unsettling. But it's unlikely the results in question were that momentous that they stayed with people outside the field. If the results were that, impactful the refuting article would belong in Science.
  - jtbayly 7y ago
    Articles from BBC, CNN blogs, “featured on an episode of NPR’s Hidden Brain podcast,” a video on YouTube from National Geographic (11m subscribers), all since 2012. Lots and lots of people outside the field continue read about this and remember it. Many millions of people. I remember when I first heard about it. I’m not in the field. A notice in Science is at least noteworthy to that same public, even if it still won’t get a fraction of the same coverage. At least people who tried to track down the original research would find the follow up study as well.
    - Misdicorl 7y ago
      The public and scientific discourses are different and Science/Nature/etc have a target audience firmly in the scientific discourse. Most of the arguments here (and in the slate article) have been talking about Science shirking their scientific duty. They are not. Perhaps you can argue that they owe it to the quality of public discourse to print this article, but they certainly don't owe it to the scientific discourse.
jtbayly 7y ago
Yes it absolutely should be if the original is highly cited on an ongoing basis. For you to dismiss the fake news that this Science journal article generated, combined with the justifications of ignoring or dismissing arguments by all conservatives as essentially a scientifically proven mental disability is astounding.
- Misdicorl 7y ago
  You're supposing that this article won't get published at all or won't be noticed by people citing the original simply because it's in a different journal. That's not what will happen. I'm not dismissing anything here except the argument that a journal is required to print all counter research to all their published articles
  - jtbayly 7y ago
    Actually, you claimed much more than that. > A refutation or null result typically isn't interesting to the audience of these journals- nor should it be. In the context I don’t see how to read this as anything other than denying that it matters that millions of people believe this to be true. You literally say they shouldn’t be interested.
    - Misdicorl 7y ago
      My comment had an implied context that I didn't communicate. That context is one of a professional scientist who understands the caveats of new (i.e. not improved/refined) research being published in a journal like Science. That is the audience that Science's editors select their articles for. The fact that (some of) these articles get gobbled up by uncritical media is a difficult problem to address. I doubt printing this refuting article in Science as opposed to FieldJournalA would yield much improvement to the situation.
      - jtbayly 7y ago
        Thanks. Helpful addition.
smsm42 7y ago
> Typically these are new and flashy results and sometimes theyre slightly suspect. Mostly theyre not How do we know that? I mean, we know that science gets things wrong sometimes, and that's fine because it is usually correcting itself. But this knowledge relies on the fact that if group X does bad research, there's always groups Y and Z that would try to replicate and report if it failed. However, if you get your knowledge from publications like Science, then you'd only read about group X but never about Y and Z. So what would you knowledge that "most flashy results are not suspect" base on, given current replication numbers, strong incentive to publish flashy results ASAP, and a policy of not publishing refutations? > A refutation or null result typically isn't interesting to the audience of these journals- nor should it be. Why? As a layman with interest in science, to me "scientists from group X discovered that drinking camel milk will make you live forever" is substantially different that "scientists from group X claimed that drinking camel milk will make you live forever but 5 other groups of scientists say it's bullshit and that research is garbage". The former presents the result as unchallenged pinnacle of scientific knowledge, and the latter as highly suspect and very much possible baloney. I as a layman who has no way to verify any of that myself and read all special press would have a lot of value in distinguishing the two situations.

justinclift 7y ago

> ... nor should it be. This bit I don't really understand. If someone is interested in X, why would they be ok with carrying around what turns out to (likely be) incorrect knowledge about it? That approach is more equated with (say) Wired, who are famously inaccurate in many details "for a good story". eg Wired is entertainment. That's not what Science (the journal) is supposed to be about though. Or is it?

Misdicorl 7y ago
Yes, believing false knowledge is unsettling. But it's unlikely the results in question were that momentous that they stayed with people outside the field. If the results were that, impactful the refuting article would belong in Science.
- jtbayly 7y ago
  Articles from BBC, CNN blogs, “featured on an episode of NPR’s Hidden Brain podcast,” a video on YouTube from National Geographic (11m subscribers), all since 2012. Lots and lots of people outside the field continue read about this and remember it. Many millions of people. I remember when I first heard about it. I’m not in the field. A notice in Science is at least noteworthy to that same public, even if it still won’t get a fraction of the same coverage. At least people who tried to track down the original research would find the follow up study as well.
  - Misdicorl 7y ago
    The public and scientific discourses are different and Science/Nature/etc have a target audience firmly in the scientific discourse. Most of the arguments here (and in the slate article) have been talking about Science shirking their scientific duty. They are not. Perhaps you can argue that they owe it to the quality of public discourse to print this article, but they certainly don't owe it to the scientific discourse.

jtbayly 7y ago

Yes it absolutely should be if the original is highly cited on an ongoing basis. For you to dismiss the fake news that this Science journal article generated, combined with the justifications of ignoring or dismissing arguments by all conservatives as essentially a scientifically proven mental disability is astounding.

Misdicorl 7y ago
You're supposing that this article won't get published at all or won't be noticed by people citing the original simply because it's in a different journal. That's not what will happen. I'm not dismissing anything here except the argument that a journal is required to print all counter research to all their published articles
- jtbayly 7y ago
  Actually, you claimed much more than that. > A refutation or null result typically isn't interesting to the audience of these journals- nor should it be. In the context I don’t see how to read this as anything other than denying that it matters that millions of people believe this to be true. You literally say they shouldn’t be interested.
  - Misdicorl 7y ago
    My comment had an implied context that I didn't communicate. That context is one of a professional scientist who understands the caveats of new (i.e. not improved/refined) research being published in a journal like Science. That is the audience that Science's editors select their articles for. The fact that (some of) these articles get gobbled up by uncritical media is a difficult problem to address. I doubt printing this refuting article in Science as opposed to FieldJournalA would yield much improvement to the situation.
    - jtbayly 7y ago
      Thanks. Helpful addition.

smsm42 7y ago

> Typically these are new and flashy results and sometimes theyre slightly suspect. Mostly theyre not How do we know that? I mean, we know that science gets things wrong sometimes, and that's fine because it is usually correcting itself. But this knowledge relies on the fact that if group X does bad research, there's always groups Y and Z that would try to replicate and report if it failed. However, if you get your knowledge from publications like Science, then you'd only read about group X but never about Y and Z. So what would you knowledge that "most flashy results are not suspect" base on, given current replication numbers, strong incentive to publish flashy results ASAP, and a policy of not publishing refutations? > A refutation or null result typically isn't interesting to the audience of these journals- nor should it be. Why? As a layman with interest in science, to me "scientists from group X discovered that drinking camel milk will make you live forever" is substantially different that "scientists from group X claimed that drinking camel milk will make you live forever but 5 other groups of scientists say it's bullshit and that research is garbage". The former presents the result as unchallenged pinnacle of scientific knowledge, and the latter as highly suspect and very much possible baloney. I as a layman who has no way to verify any of that myself and read all special press would have a lot of value in distinguishing the two situations.