4 ms·
I don't know if we will get a healthy research community by attempting to police unhealthy communities out of existence. This will only lead to research activit
by civilized 3y ago
I don't know if we will get a healthy research community by attempting to police unhealthy communities out of existence. This will only lead to research activity being further stifled by useless bureaucracy that fails to restrain most bad research while slowing down what actually matters, quality research. Instead, I think we need to focus our attention on outstanding communities and how to distinguish them from less outstanding ones.
We don't need to be threatened by the mere existence of fake journals that publish articles with "counterfeit consciousness" in them. No one actually reads that stuff. It only exists to feed badly-managed communities with terrible incentives. And the solution to such bad communities is to create good ones and showcase their work. Not waste our time obsessing over the fear that somewhere, someone is not a great researcher.
Poor research is the norm and should be ignored. Good research is the exception that should be recognized and nurtured.
- naasking 3y agoI'm a little confused by your post. This paper is about increasing training about reproducible research and open science at all levels of education, with the goal that awareness of them will increase participation and reduce the incidence of pitfalls that lead to faulty research. Is this not exactly showing people how to conduct "good research that should be recognized and nurtured"? Is this really any different than requiring training in proper statistical methods?
- civilized 3y agoNevermind, it looks like I got mixed up responding to a different comment or article. Sounds dumb but it has happened to me a couple times over the years...