4 ms·
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis The reputation of scientific researchers has been greatly har
by coolhand2120 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
The reputation of scientific researchers has been greatly harmed by the current system. Please, help find a way to fix it, or at the very least don't hinder people trying to fix it. Thanks to the way we do things now a coin flip is _better_ than peer review. Public trust in science is at an all time low. I really hope you don't think "this is fine".
- somethingsome 3y agoIMO 'public trust in science is at an all time low' is because of bad journalism more than bad papers. Papers are written by academy-type individuals for academy-type individuals, not for consumption by non experts. An academic is usually pretty fast to determine if a paper is to be trusted. So interpreting and extrapolating to the extreme the results of a minor paper in an obscure journal is more bad journalism than bad science. Then we wonder why people don't trust science..
- adastra22 3y ago> Thanks to the way we do things now a coin flip is _better_ than peer review. Public trust in science is at an all time low. I really hope you don't think "this is fine". I don't think you read my post? I'm advocating we get rid of the "peer review" [sic] system entirely. The sibling post is right though that this problem is with bad journalism (and bad institutions), not bad science. People think that "peer review" is actually some sort of scientific hurdle that strengthens the paper. It is not, it was never meant tho fill that role, and has been totally morphed by journalists into something it has no business being.