3 ms·
I believe both arguments assume honest contributors, which may not be completely true. I have no reference but vague recollection of doctored data, made up resu
by mihaaly 1y ago
I believe both arguments assume honest contributors, which may not be completely true. I have no reference but vague recollection of doctored data, made up results (basically cheating) due to publication pressure or just dishonesty/lazyness plaguing the reliability of scientific publications. Some may even be happy of the twisted reality or halucinations producing novel sounding results advancing the scientific career similar to those occured in the past. Reproducibility crisis is their friend to get away with it for a long enough time to have the personal gain harvested.
- perching_aix 1y agoThe reason I "assume honest contributors" is because assuming anything else produces trivial conclusions. Obviously someone who just wants to pump out something, anything, won't care about the accuracy of delivery, nor will anyone be impacted by the lack of it (as the paper was rubbish from the get-go). I just don't find that whole can of worms relevant here. If I really think about it, I guess I can see it being relevant like how typesetting software is, for making a paper feel more serious than it really is. Not really the angle I was going for though.