3 ms·
> And that, really, is the problem: the lack of due diligence means the rewards for bending or breaking the scientific rules tend to outweigh the incentives to
by eviks 3y ago
> And that, really, is the problem: the lack of due diligence means the rewards for bending or breaking the scientific rules tend to outweigh the incentives to observe them.
Well, change the reward:
> “publish or perish” culture that rates academics according to how often they are published and cited
Who is forcing the legions of supposedly very smart people to treat garbage volume like gold coins while overworking themselves into depression?
- stefantalpalaru 3y ago[dead]
- rsfern 3y agoAttention (for quality work or not) is the coin of the realm, so why would you expect researchers not to optimize for flashy clickbait over time consuming rigorous self-reflecting work? People have been identifying the incentive structure as a problem for a long time, but it’s not so easy to change because it requires a coordinated effort from the top of the social hierarchy - the folks on hiring/tenure/grant review committees all benefit from the eyeballs game themselves, and they’ve spent their whole careers getting good at it (many of them do rigorous work of course). The journals, which in most fields still coordinate the peer review process, also have perhaps even stronger incentive to optimize for clickbait, to the extent of sometimes letting poor quality work slide. I think it’s a long road that starts with a more frank and open review/publishing system
- eviks 3y agoIf they optimized for flashy clickbait, they wouldn't waste so much time on peer review, nor flood the journals no one will ever pay attention to with AI-generated articles