Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Should we get rid of the scientific paper, & its resulting problems & temptations?

#1
C C Offline
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/a...ific-paper

EXCERPTS: When was the last time you saw a scientific paper? A physical one, I mean. [...] Having been printed on paper since the very first scientific journal was inaugurated in 1665, the overwhelming majority of research is now submitted, reviewed and read online...

[...] But although the internet has transformed the way we read it, the overall system for how we publish science remains largely unchanged. We still have scientific papers; we still send them off to peer reviewers; we still have editors who give the ultimate thumbs up or down as to whether a paper is published in their journal.

This system comes with big problems. Chief among them is the issue of publication bias: reviewers and editors are more likely to give a scientific paper a good write-up and publish it in their journal if it reports positive or exciting results. So scientists go to great lengths to hype up their studies, lean on their analyses so they produce “better” results, and sometimes even commit fraud in order to impress those all-important gatekeepers. This drastically distorts our view of what really went on.

There are some possible fixes that change the way journals work. Maybe the decision to publish could be made based only on the methodology of a study, rather than on its results (this is already happening to a modest extent in a few journals). Maybe scientists could just publish all their research by default, and journals would curate, rather than decide, which results get out into the world. But maybe we could go a step further, and get rid of scientific papers altogether.

Scientists are obsessed with papers – specifically, with having more papers published under their name, extending the crucial “publications” section of their CV. So it might sound outrageous to suggest we could do without them. But that obsession is the problem. Paradoxically, the sacred status of a published, peer-reviewed paper makes it harder to get the contents of those papers right.

Consider the messy reality of scientific research. Studies almost always throw up weird, unexpected numbers that complicate any simple interpretation. But a traditional paper – word count and all – pretty well forces you to dumb things down. If what you’re working towards is a big, milestone goal of a published paper, the temptation is ever-present to file away a few of the jagged edges of your results, to help “tell a better story”. Many scientists admit, in surveys, to doing just that – making their results into unambiguous, attractive-looking papers, but distorting the science along the way.

And consider corrections... (MORE - missing details)
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Article Who should you trust? Why appeals to scientific consensus are often uncompelling C C 0 74 Feb 16, 2024 07:05 PM
Last Post: C C
  Article "Scientific American" is back to distorting the facts to buttress its ideology C C 1 92 Oct 26, 2023 11:48 PM
Last Post: confused2
  Article Why science & its journals should remain free of ideology: an example from "Nature" C C 0 69 Mar 23, 2023 02:50 PM
Last Post: C C
  "Science is political": Defending its soapbox antics, SciAm fully looses its cred? C C 1 340 Nov 12, 2022 06:10 AM
Last Post: Kornee
  Linking low self-esteem to social problems was a fraud of state task force C C 1 577 Jun 28, 2018 02:18 AM
Last Post: Syne



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)