Scientists are people. Taking the path of least resistance and skipping over details is the nature of some people, and thus of some scientists as well. It's no

Scientists are people. Taking the path of least resistance and skipping over details is the nature of some people, and thus of some scientists as well. It's not unbeknownst in other professions. Anecdotally, I haven't had my car serviced in a shop for years because mechanics even with supposedly good reputation would fail to do even trivial maintenance jobs properly, invariably requiring myself to partially redo it myself to ensure the quality of the installation which defeats the point of having a job done by a paid professional in the first place. It's the boring details and following the process carefully that these people skip, in hope for getting results quicker and moving on sooner. I just take it that some people are like that, and the lower barrier of entry to sciences than before means there are more corner-cutters in academia as well. The question is where in the process of the academic journey from student, master, grad-student to doctor are people qualified for the work as for their psychology and personality, not only knowledge and intelligence? The danger signs with this sort of personality are undoubtedly visible in early stages. The market pressure to maintain one's reputation doesn't seem to work in the academia as illustrated by the article. Thus, it would be better to start explicitly culling this attitude off the field before these people get to establish themselves despite their bad workmanship.