3 ms·
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 impro
by 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 agoThanks. Helpful addition.
- smsm42 7y ago> I doubt printing this refuting article in Science as opposed to FieldJournalA would yield much improvement to the situation. I think you're wrong. The uncritical media does read Science but it won't ever read special journals. Thus, the wider public will be exposed to original bad research, but will never be exposed to the correction. The fact that people in the field who are specifically interested in this specific topic of research (all 25 or so of them) would know the truth is nice, but nobody would even think to seek out these people and ask for their opinion, when everybody already knows the "truth" (which happens to be false).