3 ms·

I think it's more that the "publish or perish" model has emphasised important/newsworthy results, which has then fed a model of science reporting (and I include

I think it's more that the "publish or perish" model has emphasised important/newsworthy results, which has then fed a model of science reporting (and I include the journals in this) that have exaggerated results to the point where trust is strained and science reporting is incredible (in the other sense of the word). The public have been bombarded with ridiculous, counter-intuitive "science" for decades, only for a lot of it to be quietly withdrawn or superceded later. It erodes trust. And that's without taking into consideration the shady corporate-science bullshit like the fat vs sugar debate in nutrition science. If a company can buy a paper that says whatever it wants, and get it peer-reviewed and published in a journal, why would we trust science? Should we even?

JJMcJ 5y ago
> newsworthy In medicine, the Journal of the AMA and the New England Journal of Medicine seem to be the main sources of articles that reach the public's eye. The editor of the New England Journal once complained that it was troubling how papers that had only tentative results, more suggestions for further research than conclusions, would get blown out of proportion in the mainstream news media. Some of the burden is on the journalists, not the researchers.
- marcus_holmes 5y ago
  Agree completely, but the journals do have some power here - they could stop the journalists writing bullshit. But they like the attention the media coverage brings so they don't do that (and then they blame the journos). And of course the journals could make the scientists reframe their papers so they're not catnip for journos.
  - JJMcJ 5y ago
    > they could stop the journalists writing bullshit How do they do that? Start suing news outlets?