3 ms·

Take this comment as an extra upvote. The thing is: we need to figure out a way to make accountability to become more of a thing. Peer review isn't enough (clea

Take this comment as an extra upvote. The thing is: we need to figure out a way to make accountability to become more of a thing. Peer review isn't enough (clearly). I suspect that people should create a journal that has more strict requirements than simply peer review. I think for many forms of science, one should provide an R script with the data they used to get the results. Yes, there are still ways to fabricate stuff but it'll be more transparent. Another thing is: there needs to be an incentive for reproducible findings Unfortunately, I don't know how to go about this

lazide 2y ago
The issue is, who is going to prefer that paper over the existing ones? You’ll have higher costs, and will you have higher returns?
- snackbroken 2y ago
  The people providing science funding ought to be interested in their money being spent on science. If the methods of a study are not described in sufficient detail as to enable replication, the study is simply not science. Of course, doing science requires more diligence than doing pseudoscience. That's kind of the point.
  - lazide 2y ago
    And I think that is really the crux. I don’t see it getting better for awhile either. We need to get a lot more cynicism in society to counteract the fraud.
  - me-vs-cat 2y ago
    How many of the people providing the funding are interested in science, and how many simply want an outcome which furthers their ends?
raverbashing 2y ago
Honestly? Peer-review sucks and I'm not convinced it's all fine and good with it neither Public review is better (but also worse in important ways) A possible improvement would be for reviews to be semi-public but (author) anonymous, also where the reviewers would have some choice in selecting papers
nis0s 2y ago
I think it’s better to provide raw data and your hypotheses (in some manner) to third-party reviewers in a double blind fashion. If third-party reviewers cannot confirm your hypotheses, then it’s better to go back to the drawing board. Sometimes people are not necessarily trying to defraud, but maybe they’re simply misinterpreting or misunderstanding their results.

lazide 2y ago

The issue is, who is going to prefer that paper over the existing ones? You’ll have higher costs, and will you have higher returns?

snackbroken 2y ago
The people providing science funding ought to be interested in their money being spent on science. If the methods of a study are not described in sufficient detail as to enable replication, the study is simply not science. Of course, doing science requires more diligence than doing pseudoscience. That's kind of the point.
- lazide 2y ago
  And I think that is really the crux. I don’t see it getting better for awhile either. We need to get a lot more cynicism in society to counteract the fraud.
- me-vs-cat 2y ago
  How many of the people providing the funding are interested in science, and how many simply want an outcome which furthers their ends?

raverbashing 2y ago

Honestly? Peer-review sucks and I'm not convinced it's all fine and good with it neither Public review is better (but also worse in important ways) A possible improvement would be for reviews to be semi-public but (author) anonymous, also where the reviewers would have some choice in selecting papers

nis0s 2y ago

I think it’s better to provide raw data and your hypotheses (in some manner) to third-party reviewers in a double blind fashion. If third-party reviewers cannot confirm your hypotheses, then it’s better to go back to the drawing board. Sometimes people are not necessarily trying to defraud, but maybe they’re simply misinterpreting or misunderstanding their results.