4 ms·
I don't think they are aware of how much bad science is out there and how many people are trying to publish it. It wouldn't be a journal every month, it would
by unclebunkers 12y ago
I don't think they are aware of how much bad science is out there and how many people are trying to publish it. It wouldn't be a journal every month, it would be a phone book every week. Corporations would simply drown out real science with papers designed to support whatever narrative they were promoting.
Where this may make sense is when Watson grows up, and you can aggregate the volume of garbage to fill in the holes of knowledge. But that's more than a couple years off I suspect.
- svsaraf 12y agoI think the author addressed your concern: > Ask journal editors and scientific peers to review study designs and analysis plans and commit to publish the results if the study is conducted and reported in a professional manner (which will be ensured by a second round of peer review). If the study design is peer reviewed, I would hazard a guess that there would be less bad science, not more. Currently study design takes second priority to significant results, which is perhaps why we have the problems of inconsistent research in the first place.
- nhstanley 12y agoI think that would be a great step. Science would be greatly advanced if there was more focus on whether a good question was asked and whether the experiments were well chosen, than whether the experiments gave positive/negative results.
- pcrh 12y agoA lot of bad science is published. I would guess that more than 50% of published articles in the biomedical field are not worth anything, even as "negative results".