Would these newer approaches to science publishing make it easier to discuss difficult topics? For example, if Gunter Bechly could have been evaluated only on his work and not on the fact that he switched sides in the Darwin wars, wouldn’t that be better for everyone but Darwin trolls?
Peer review
Skeptics duped by fake prof
But look on the bright side. At least they care. In the social sciences, it’s the guy revealing flimflam who gets punished. But why, exactly, is a PhD so important? The Sokal hoax-ees all have PhDs, probably, and what good did that ever do?
Rob Sheldon on why statisticians are in a panic
The panic in sociology, psychology, nutrition science, and pharmacology has been growing as >70% papers with “p-values” smaller than 0.05 are discovered to be unrepeatable.
Sokal hoaxer punished: Science has left the building
The historic moment here is the university’s awesome lack of a sense of shame. At one time, people would ask hard questions of themselves if they looked as silly as this, rather than rushing to blame someone else.
Mark Steyn on the politicization of science journals
It sounds like, in their ideal scenario, the rest of us would never know, except for our own experience, if what they are saying is incorrect.
Data detective identifies hundreds of correction- or retraction-worthy papers
In the midst of all the sham, scam, and flimflam in journals today, here’s a story of a real-life data detective who makes a difference.
Darwinian Jerry Coyne makes a good point about the social science hoaxes
The distinction is that low-quality papers might happen to fall through the cracks now and then and a cherry picker could gin up an indictment of a whole field unjustly. BUT when a number of hoax papers get accepted by various journals, that points to deeper systemic rot. Especially when the social science profs are enraged rather than ashamed
Retraction Watch wonders: How did THIS nonsense end up in a peer-reviewed journal?
Another question: Why are so many studies done about why laypeople don’t trust science and comparatively few done on what’s the matter with people who DO “trust science” in an atmosphere where this stuff seems to flourish unchecked?
Robert J. Marks: Reforming peer review faces serious numerical law problems
Laws concerning the way people behave around numbers mean that quantification itself invites certain types of corruption.
Can the history of medicine help social sciences out of their dark ages?
But maybe this historian of science’s idea can’t work. Many doctors are prepared to slay beautiful theories for the sake of the lives of their patients. Have social scientists any similar motivation?
The astonishing rise of junk science
Gillis’s overly respectful view of Correct science media stems from one key problem with his assumptions: He assumes that the rise of junk science is mainly due to new publishing technology. No, naturalism is the cause.
Why scientists tend to dismiss well-supported ideas that lie outside the paradigm
The problem is that people can come to think of approved stagnation as a duty and stagnating as a virtue. If a genius comes along, with new ideas, they have lost the habit of listening with expectation.
Journal Science wouldn’t publish failed replication of “liberal vs conservative” brain study
The researchers who cold not replicate that “conservatives’ brains are more attuned to threats” were dismissed by the AAAS journal Science with no reasonable explanation.
“Texas Sharpshooter Fallacies” produce bad science data
Robert J. Marks, author with design theorist William Dembski and Winston Ewert of Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics talks with Gary Smith, author The AI Delusion, about how, in general, based data is produced Smith: Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy # 1 is that I’m going to prove what a great shot I am and so I stand […]
Learning from one of “science’s biggest frauds” (we hope)
Research integrity specialist: Too many research-misconduct investigations turn out to be inadequate or flawed