3 ms·

I know everywhere it holds a lot of weight, but I think that in Europe/US an additional huge factor for academic career is the ability to raise funding. Maybe

I know everywhere it holds a lot of weight, but I think that in Europe/US an additional huge factor for academic career is the ability to raise funding. Maybe in China there's less need to find private funding for research thus scientific impact based on papers may hold more weight. But I'm 100% that fake research and cheating is rampant in all of natural science everywhere in the world, and I myself had spent 6 months of my life in a lab trying to reproduce fake results from a previous researcher in my lab. We only caught up it was fake data way later, when we spotted one single outlier number, an impossibly high voltage generated by his system (a 5/10% open current voltage that compounded all the other results).

chrisjj 3y ago
> we spotted one single outlier number, an impossibly high voltage generated by his system Surely the outlier could have been an innocent digital capture error.
- epolanski 3y ago
  You're supposed to publish results that can be reproduced as you describe. And it wasn't an outlier. The simplest comparison I can make to illustrate the point without boring you is measuring the power of a car engine. Imagine that you get a very high torque number, but horsepower doesn't match. Issue is: torque and horsepower are linearly dependent torque = HP * RMP / 5252 Measurements that linerarly correlated with the voltage published were all consistent with a number 10/15% lower.
  - chrisjj 3y ago
    > You're supposed to publish results that can be reproduced as you describe. You are supposed to try. Whether you succeed is necessarily subject to any measurement issues. > And it wasn't an outlier. You said it was.
jancsika 3y ago
> But I'm 100% that fake research and cheating is rampant in all of natural science everywhere in the world, and I myself had spent 6 months of my life in a lab trying to reproduce fake results from a previous researcher in my lab. A single anecdote doesn't support having 100% certainty for such a broad claim.
- epolanski 3y ago
  The reproducibility problem in natural science is a well known phenomenon of which I have provided confirmations.

chrisjj 3y ago

> we spotted one single outlier number, an impossibly high voltage generated by his system Surely the outlier could have been an innocent digital capture error.

epolanski 3y ago
You're supposed to publish results that can be reproduced as you describe. And it wasn't an outlier. The simplest comparison I can make to illustrate the point without boring you is measuring the power of a car engine. Imagine that you get a very high torque number, but horsepower doesn't match. Issue is: torque and horsepower are linearly dependent torque = HP * RMP / 5252 Measurements that linerarly correlated with the voltage published were all consistent with a number 10/15% lower.
- chrisjj 3y ago
  > You're supposed to publish results that can be reproduced as you describe. You are supposed to try. Whether you succeed is necessarily subject to any measurement issues. > And it wasn't an outlier. You said it was.

jancsika 3y ago

> But I'm 100% that fake research and cheating is rampant in all of natural science everywhere in the world, and I myself had spent 6 months of my life in a lab trying to reproduce fake results from a previous researcher in my lab. A single anecdote doesn't support having 100% certainty for such a broad claim.

epolanski 3y ago
The reproducibility problem in natural science is a well known phenomenon of which I have provided confirmations.