Academia in theory: rigorous debate, only the best ideas succeed Academia in practice: two peer-reviewers who barely glanced at the paper and an editor who doesn't care if the numbers are right or wrong
-
-
Editors don't care about numeric mistakes because there is an assumed trust built into the system that you check these before submission. The idea that a paper would get through peer-review with numerous basic mistakes is pretty unthinkable even though it happens all the time
-
It’s sad. In maths, fixing errors is so important that most authors leap to publish errata if there’s a mistake. But if my correspondence attempts with the Lancet C&AH are any indication, some med journal editors are actively invested in preserving certain errors/falsifications.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Incentives to publish large numbers of papers describing micro-advances have damaged the system. This damage is a result of both profit motive by publishers and laziness of hiring and tenure committees. (1/2)
-
We are at a point in history where fact-based analysis is under threat. While criticism is warranted, statements that undermine confidence in the entire fact-discovery enterprise may not be particularly helpful at this time. (2/2)
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I think the real reason is far less attractive and difficult to overcome: in actual practice, it’s not feasible (or really your job) to on-your-own reproduce someone else’s results, especially when you don’t have full understanding of the methods or access to the tools.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
We can find incentive problems everywhere if that's our focus.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.