4 ms·

> From the inside, researchers/scientists see this as a non-issue. A few bad apples. What "inside" are you in? I don't see this as a non-issue as a scientist.

> From the inside, researchers/scientists see this as a non-issue. A few bad apples. What "inside" are you in? I don't see this as a non-issue as a scientist. It's a massive problem. It means that when I read papers, I'm constantly extremely suspicious of the results.`

wddkcs 3y ago
If it is widely perceived as a massive problem, why are there no moves to change the system? The intransigence shows there is no recognition of the problem, or the perverse incentives prevent change, which is the same problem at another level.
- bumby 3y ago
  Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." This applies to multiple levels in the publication game. Lab grants would likely dry up if the size of the problem was revealed to be massive. Publications would lose credibility, prestige, and money if the problem proved large. It can be recognized as a problem by those who's salaries don't depend on it, but still remain unchanged because those in the best position to change it have salaries that do.
- coolhand2120 3y ago
  Perhaps you’re not looking hard enough https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
Eumenes 3y ago
I'm glad you think this is a big issue. I'd be curious to see polling around the level of trust scientists have in the integrity of the system. I doubt its below 50% approval.
- InSteady 3y ago
  To be fair, 55-65% trust in the integrity of scientific research among scientists is still abysmal and indicates a huge problem. If we are talking about the number of scientists who see flaws and hold skepticism, that's absolutely fine (I'd argue the number could be much higher and be quite healthy overall). But we are talking about integrity. Ethical research, lack of fraud, lack of bias, lack of perverse incentives, a system that produces high quality and trustworthy output by design, etc.
refurb 3y ago
I don't see this as a non-issue as a scientist. It's a massive problem. It means that when I read papers, I'm constantly extremely suspicious of the results. As a scientist this how I always read papers. It's how I was trained. Don't just read the results, read the paper and critique it - was the method appropriate? were control tests performed? is the statistical analysis sound? And even beyond that - if a substantial claim is made, it's assumed to be an anomaly until reproduced by others. I will say that labs get a reputation. Well known labs with PIs who produce good science are usually treated with a more accepting view (i.e. this is probably true). Unknown labs are treated with a ton of suspicion.

wddkcs 3y ago

If it is widely perceived as a massive problem, why are there no moves to change the system? The intransigence shows there is no recognition of the problem, or the perverse incentives prevent change, which is the same problem at another level.

bumby 3y ago
Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." This applies to multiple levels in the publication game. Lab grants would likely dry up if the size of the problem was revealed to be massive. Publications would lose credibility, prestige, and money if the problem proved large. It can be recognized as a problem by those who's salaries don't depend on it, but still remain unchanged because those in the best position to change it have salaries that do.
coolhand2120 3y ago
Perhaps you’re not looking hard enough https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

Eumenes 3y ago

I'm glad you think this is a big issue. I'd be curious to see polling around the level of trust scientists have in the integrity of the system. I doubt its below 50% approval.

InSteady 3y ago
To be fair, 55-65% trust in the integrity of scientific research among scientists is still abysmal and indicates a huge problem. If we are talking about the number of scientists who see flaws and hold skepticism, that's absolutely fine (I'd argue the number could be much higher and be quite healthy overall). But we are talking about integrity. Ethical research, lack of fraud, lack of bias, lack of perverse incentives, a system that produces high quality and trustworthy output by design, etc.

refurb 3y ago

I don't see this as a non-issue as a scientist. It's a massive problem. It means that when I read papers, I'm constantly extremely suspicious of the results. As a scientist this how I always read papers. It's how I was trained. Don't just read the results, read the paper and critique it - was the method appropriate? were control tests performed? is the statistical analysis sound? And even beyond that - if a substantial claim is made, it's assumed to be an anomaly until reproduced by others. I will say that labs get a reputation. Well known labs with PIs who produce good science are usually treated with a more accepting view (i.e. this is probably true). Unknown labs are treated with a ton of suspicion.