3 ms·

> We are in DIRE fucking need of prominent, loud, and substantial public funding for reproducibility studies, and regulations around reporting on scientific dis

> We are in DIRE fucking need of prominent, loud, and substantial public funding for reproducibility studies, and regulations around reporting on scientific discoveries/studies. there's got to be a market for someone to create a new journal that only accepts/publishes research that has been independently reproduced at least a few times and has an actually meaningful peer review process and standards. It could serve as a repository for research that we can actually put some measure of faith in because right now companies can just pay for research with whatever results they want to see in a headline, and there's basically no accountability for scientists that put out garbage research. Everyone seems to agree that "publish or perish" is a problem, but as long as people are forced to constantly put something out there it'd be nice to see more effort put into validating/invalidating prior research. It'd be better than just adding to the pile of never-replicated garbage that nobody can trust but everyone goes on to cite anyway.

ToucanLoucan 2y ago
> there's got to be a market for someone to create a new journal that only accepts/publishes research that has been independently reproduced at least a few times and has an actually meaningful peer review process and standards. I doubt it. All the incentives for all parties are in the exact opposite direction: - A journal gains readership based on how many studies it can publish. If it barely publishes any, no one will buy it. Would you buy a magazine that didn't publish anything? - The doctors and their backers in turn wouldn't give a shit if they got declined by this theoretical journal. They get declined all the time for far less legitimate reasons, most of the time submitting to as many journals as they can, since they will be declined by the majority. - The journal itself if it's too choosy and lacks the existing brand recognition is incentivized to publish anything it can, which is why most startup journals are even worse than the existing (bad) ones.

ToucanLoucan 2y ago

> there's got to be a market for someone to create a new journal that only accepts/publishes research that has been independently reproduced at least a few times and has an actually meaningful peer review process and standards. I doubt it. All the incentives for all parties are in the exact opposite direction: - A journal gains readership based on how many studies it can publish. If it barely publishes any, no one will buy it. Would you buy a magazine that didn't publish anything? - The doctors and their backers in turn wouldn't give a shit if they got declined by this theoretical journal. They get declined all the time for far less legitimate reasons, most of the time submitting to as many journals as they can, since they will be declined by the majority. - The journal itself if it's too choosy and lacks the existing brand recognition is incentivized to publish anything it can, which is why most startup journals are even worse than the existing (bad) ones.