Also in 2013, I suggested that there should be substantial career rewards for successful Sokaling.
There should also be consequences for editors and reviewers that accept demonstrably and intentionally bogus papers.https://twitter.com/Meaningness/status/307084670108053505 …
-
-

Three questions:
𝔸) Would this make academia more adversarial, and thereby even more awful?
𝔹) Can a system develop that is adequately resistant to gaming (Goodhart’s Law)?
ℂ) Is it realistic to imagine something like this could actually happen?Show this thread -

I’d love to hear your opinions about 𝔸 & 𝔹 !
As for ℂ — the crisis in academia is now obvious to all. Things cannot go on as they are. Unusual action becomes possible in extremis.
Recent dramatic process reforms in social psychology are startling, and inspiring.Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Subtler errors? Do you mean doing original research and then adding a few errors in it?
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.
How would this work in practice? A paper would have to be registered as a Sokaling before first submission, along with an explanation of what the author thinks is wrong with it. A cryptographic time-locked database could ensure honesty about this.
Fraud—invented facts—are a different problem from nonsense. In science, publishing a paper based on false, made-up data would not generally count. Either you use real data and give a bogus interpretation, or you describe a worthless data-collection process (with fake data).
This proposal is not nice. Unfortunately, it is too late for nice. Many-to-most academic fields run on a go-along-to-get-along basis, and now have large negative net value as a result.
Some fields should simply end. I suggested that for nutrition:
A tension here: academia is increasingly awful as a career. That drives away many of the best researchers. Reforms that add to the suffering risk making a bad situation even worse.
Currently, reviewing papers is unpaid scut-work. Not surprising not everyone does it well.
… and the total number of papers published might drop precipitously if reviewers were more reluctant to recommend publication.
That would be good. Everyone agrees there’s WAY too much stuff published under the current system. A 90% reduction would be great.
I’d suggest that every PhD student be required to perform at least one attempt at Sokaling as a graduation requirement.
Learning what should count as unacceptably bad research is a critical part of learning how to do it well. And of spotting the difference in the lit.
Initially, everyone would go for low-hanging fruit in Sokaling attempts: the easiest ways to get nonsense past reviewers.
Reviewers would quickly catch on to the simplest tricks… then subtler errors.
And I hope this would lead to a virtuous upward spiral of quality.