Mar 5, 2025 06:51 PM
Even faced with the same data, ecologists sometimes come to opposite conclusions
https://www.science.org/content/article/...onclusions
INTRO: Give a group of scientists the same data and the same research question, and they should come up with similar answers—in theory. But they don’t, according to a paper published this month in BMC Biology, which finds that 246 ecologists analyzing the same data sets reached widely varying conclusions, with some finding effects in totally opposite directions. The paper is the latest in a line of “many analyst” projects that examine how results can vary because of scientists’ decisions during data analysis—and the first to study the effects in ecology... (MORE - missing details)
The fragile state of peer review
]https://ukrant.nl/magazine/the-fragile-state-of-peer-review-can-open-science-fix-the-system/?lang=en]
EXCERPTS: Peer review is supposed to prevent poor quality research from being published, but it’s failing at doing this, Hoekstra points out. There are many cases where a paper that came through the peer review system turned out to have serious flaws. ‘Some studies tried to replicate published work, but were unable to do so.’
[...] The problem, Hoekstra believes, is that peer reviewing doesn’t protect science as a whole; it just protects one particular journal at a time. ‘Because when an author is rejected by one journal, they just go to the next one, and the next one.’ As many as it takes to get their work published... (MORE - missing details)
https://www.science.org/content/article/...onclusions
INTRO: Give a group of scientists the same data and the same research question, and they should come up with similar answers—in theory. But they don’t, according to a paper published this month in BMC Biology, which finds that 246 ecologists analyzing the same data sets reached widely varying conclusions, with some finding effects in totally opposite directions. The paper is the latest in a line of “many analyst” projects that examine how results can vary because of scientists’ decisions during data analysis—and the first to study the effects in ecology... (MORE - missing details)
The fragile state of peer review
]https://ukrant.nl/magazine/the-fragile-state-of-peer-review-can-open-science-fix-the-system/?lang=en]
EXCERPTS: Peer review is supposed to prevent poor quality research from being published, but it’s failing at doing this, Hoekstra points out. There are many cases where a paper that came through the peer review system turned out to have serious flaws. ‘Some studies tried to replicate published work, but were unable to do so.’
[...] The problem, Hoekstra believes, is that peer reviewing doesn’t protect science as a whole; it just protects one particular journal at a time. ‘Because when an author is rejected by one journal, they just go to the next one, and the next one.’ As many as it takes to get their work published... (MORE - missing details)