5 ms·
No, but you need to be able to ask people who’re “in the know,” e.g. > When Roberts contacted one of the journals the editor responded that “I wouldn’t trust t
by peytn 5y ago
No, but you need to be able to ask people who’re “in the know,” e.g.
> When Roberts contacted one of the journals the editor responded that “I wouldn’t trust the data.”
People already know what the bullshit results are.
- KittenInABox 5y agoHow do you know if any individual person is "in the know"?
- wrycoder 5y agoYou evaluate their background, publications, and associates, and then you use your best judgement.
- earleybird 5y agoWith an appeal to authority :-)
- caseysoftware 5y agoIf the editor didn't trust the data, why did they publish? The people who keep informed on their field (aka "in the know") would then be tainted because they would likely believe a journal would vet the data, process, and researchers before publication. Unless you mean "in the know" in that they know the entire publishing system is a scam... and the ripples from that are huge.
- topspin 5y ago"If the editor didn't trust the data, why did they publish?" They're in on it. Without material the journals have nothing to publish. So their inclination is to accept and publish with as little friction as possible. Publish or Die. Remember? That applies to the whole supply chain, not just poor put upon individual researchers.
- diognesofsinope 5y agoSimilar to how in psychology replication studies when they asked professors to predict which studies would and wouldn't replicate I think they were ~75% correct. Replication was ~50%. They have an idea of what is bullshit, but there's a very strong culture of 'don't call others out on bad research'