My roommate and I had a running joke about this as undergrads ten years back We'd reference non-existent papers, published in the American Journal of Scientific Discovery to drunk coeds It never occurred to us that we were replicating an existing industry
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @Aelkus @eigenrobot
I was watching the psych replication crisis as it unfolded on Twitter, and was deeply freaked out for more than year. Post-adjustment I am vastly more skeptical, but my feel is that much academic research has been deeply flawed for decades. Paul Meehl was saying this in the 60's.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Likely there has been steady deterioration on the decade scale due to the increasing demand for academic positions and grant funds, but the trend would depend on if/how you normalize for growth in academic research.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
In the absence of non-gamable success metric, the resume arms race results in ever higher quantity of ever more slapdash results.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I recall that it is common in psych to have >10 journal papers by end of PhD. That is bonkers. For our robotics students, they have maybe 5-6 pubs, with 2 journal pubs.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Interesting! I bet 10+ is indicative of low quality, but you can have garbage with low numbers. Eg, median number of career journal publications for PhD economists is zero
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.