You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
33 points

Ewww - the whole point of peer review is to catch this shit. If peer review isn’t working, we should be going back to monographs :)

permalink
report
reply
76 points

I disagree there - peer review as a system isn’t designed to catch fraud at all, it’s designed to ensure that studies that get published meet a minimum standard for competence. Reviewers aren’t asked to look for fake data, and in most cases aren’t trained to spot it either.

Whether we need to create a new system that is designed to catch fraud prior to publication is a whole different question.

permalink
report
parent
reply
54 points

Whether we need to create a new system that is designed to catch fraud prior to publication is a whole different question

That system already exists. It’s what replication studies are for. Whether we desperately need to massively bolster the amount of replication studies done is the question, and the answer is ‘yes’.

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points
*

But that’s not S E X Y! We need new research, to earn grants and subsidize faculty pay!

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

An institute for reproducibility would be awesome

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

We could award a certain percentage of grants and grad students should be able to get degrees doing replication studies. Unfortunately everyone is chasing total paper count and impact factor rankings and shit.

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

Maybe we should consider replication studies to be “service to the community” when judging career accomplishments. Like, maybe you never chaired a conference but you published several replication studies instead. You could get your Masters students and/or undergrads to do the replications. We’d need journals that focus on replication studies, though.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Yeah, reviewing is about making sure the methods are sound and the conclusions are supported by the data. Whether or not the data are correct is largely something that the reviewer cannot determine.

If a machine spits out a reading of 5.3, but the paper says 6.2, the reviewer can’t catch that. If numbers are too perfect, you might be suspicious of it, but it’s really not your job to go all forensic accountant on the data.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

You’re conflating peer review and studies that verify results. The problem is that verifying someone else’s results isn’t sexy, doesn’t get you grant money, and doesn’t further your career. Redoing the work and verifying the results of other “pioneers” is important, but thankless work. Until we insensitivise doing the boring science by funding all fundamental science research more, this kind of problem will only get worse.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Science Memes

!science_memes@mander.xyz

Create post

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don’t throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

Community stats

  • 11K

    Monthly active users

  • 3.2K

    Posts

  • 51K

    Comments