3 ms·

How to get published: "Other authors are wrong." How not to get published: "The general consensus is right." So although individuals may not flip-flop const

How to get published: "Other authors are wrong." How not to get published: "The general consensus is right." So although individuals may not flip-flop constantly, fields as a whole do. Pick almost any topic in almost any field (especially humanities) and read papers 10-20 years apart. There's a constant cycle. The cycle becomes self reinforcing too, because now you can interact with previous criticisms (Dr. A said this, but Dr. B said he was wrong. In fact, A was correct because B neglected to consider...).

swatcoder 4y ago
Yes, earnestly contributing your effort towards a controversial or unsettled issue is a good way to publish and make progress in your career. And yes, some fields aren’t able to perform the kind of reliable science of physics or chemistry, and so end up with a lot of papers that just collectively oscillate around topics. But I have a hard time seeing how that’s what the above commenter was suggesting.
- namaria 4y ago
  Null hypothesis confirmation is not a good source of papers. Framing of problem is part of the craft. It's not a secret that there is a big reproducibility problem in science today. Why? Because problems and results are hand crafted to go from "let's disprove this... oh look I did it".
lisper 4y ago
As someone who made their living publishing scientific papers for over a decade and amassed a track record that showed that I was pretty good at it, I can tell you from first hand experience that you are absolutely wrong about this. A much better approximation to the truth would be something like this: How not to get published: "Other authors are wrong." How to get published: "These specific other authors are right, and I have built upon the solid foundation laid by their brilliant work to do this other thing that may or may not have any actual utility or be of interest to anyone." [UPDATE] I actually did once publish a paper [1] that explicitly described (some of) the reasons that one of the then-leading theories in my field was wrong and how I thought it could be improved. It was more or less the beginning of the end of my career. I don't know if there was any causal relationship between these two events, but there was definitely a temporal one. And now that I reflect upon it, it wasn't even me who pointed out the problem, I was actually just citing Ralph Hartley who had pointed out the problems seven years earlier. He was, AFAICT, never heard from again either. [1] https://www.coursehero.com/file/60834776/tlapdf/ https://www.coursehero.com/file/60834776/tlapdf/
- namaria 4y ago
  You don't attack established authors and frameworks. The low hanging fruit I was referencing is choosing something easy to disprove such as "eggs kill" or "roman empire fell because lead poisoning". After these results are published, the process is reversed. You disprove "eggs don't kill" or "lead poisoning had no bearing on the fall of roman empire". Ad infinitum.
- BurningFrog 4y ago
  Is this because those other authors are the "peers" that get to peer review the paper?
  - lisper 4y ago
    Yes. Exactly.

swatcoder 4y ago

Yes, earnestly contributing your effort towards a controversial or unsettled issue is a good way to publish and make progress in your career. And yes, some fields aren’t able to perform the kind of reliable science of physics or chemistry, and so end up with a lot of papers that just collectively oscillate around topics. But I have a hard time seeing how that’s what the above commenter was suggesting.

namaria 4y ago
Null hypothesis confirmation is not a good source of papers. Framing of problem is part of the craft. It's not a secret that there is a big reproducibility problem in science today. Why? Because problems and results are hand crafted to go from "let's disprove this... oh look I did it".

lisper 4y ago

As someone who made their living publishing scientific papers for over a decade and amassed a track record that showed that I was pretty good at it, I can tell you from first hand experience that you are absolutely wrong about this. A much better approximation to the truth would be something like this: How not to get published: "Other authors are wrong." How to get published: "These specific other authors are right, and I have built upon the solid foundation laid by their brilliant work to do this other thing that may or may not have any actual utility or be of interest to anyone." [UPDATE] I actually did once publish a paper [1] that explicitly described (some of) the reasons that one of the then-leading theories in my field was wrong and how I thought it could be improved. It was more or less the beginning of the end of my career. I don't know if there was any causal relationship between these two events, but there was definitely a temporal one. And now that I reflect upon it, it wasn't even me who pointed out the problem, I was actually just citing Ralph Hartley who had pointed out the problems seven years earlier. He was, AFAICT, never heard from again either. [1] https://www.coursehero.com/file/60834776/tlapdf/ https://www.coursehero.com/file/60834776/tlapdf/

namaria 4y ago
You don't attack established authors and frameworks. The low hanging fruit I was referencing is choosing something easy to disprove such as "eggs kill" or "roman empire fell because lead poisoning". After these results are published, the process is reversed. You disprove "eggs don't kill" or "lead poisoning had no bearing on the fall of roman empire". Ad infinitum.
BurningFrog 4y ago
Is this because those other authors are the "peers" that get to peer review the paper?
- lisper 4y ago
  Yes. Exactly.