I agree with @briandavidearp (& see my other couple tweets about this) —I don't think there's nothing to learn here, but I think it's a poor inference to indict an entire field on the basis of a few accepted junk papers in low-tier journals. 1/2
-
-
Interesting — I'm traveling today and have been reading reactions to this in fits and spurts, but I've seen a few tweeps saying things like "well, they were rejected from most of the 1st rate journals in the field". maybe that's not accurate?
-
Some of the earlier papers they submitted were rejected from top-tier journals; but toward the middle of their experiment (once they got the hang of things) they started getting papers in very well respected journals, including top ones
-
Oh I see, good to know. I mean, still doesn't justify a field-wide inference w/o a control, and especially in the face of all the evidence (some of which you cited in your thread) that comparably nonsensical crap gets into Science! and Nature! :/ (albeit differently nonsensical)
-
I agree, but "differently nonsensical" is an understatement. How many fake studies on Quantum Electronics would you be able to produce in 4 months and how many would pass peer review? Personality? Genomics? Sociology (ps: top sociology journals rejected all of their papers).
-
I agree that there is a lot of bad studies in the Cognitive Sciences (lot of variation in subfield quality as well). But I don't think the success rate per amount of fake studies produced in the same amount of time trying to master the respective discipline would be the same.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.