The mistake is thinking this is a discovery. Even in STEM we understand the literature is heavily contaminated by bullshit. The buffoons here are the hoaxers who think we don’t understand this or this is surprising to anyone who understands academic publishing.pic.twitter.com/MZCjH0svga
Scientists, of course, know this about the preliminary nature of a lot of published literature. Lay people tend not to understand this aspect of the scientific literature.
-
-
Yeah we used to joke the higher the impact factor the more likely it’s wrong.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
As someone who's been interested in meta-research and read Ioannidis and others for years, I'm more than aware of this! To me, that's precisely the point: it is *not* about honest research that eventually turns out (for a lot of different (and often good, or not easily
-
preventable) reasons) to be false, it is pure nonsense (beyond a reasonable doubt) that gets published (and praised by reviewers!) in "good" journals! And I've heard many scientists hold the same position I do...
- Show replies
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.