At Vox: Most papers fail to replicate for totally predictable reasons.
Which is fine in principle. But be realistic. The Darwin mob, an early flowering of Cancel Culture, will not be satisfied with anything less than retraction and the obliteration of the careers of everyone involved. If that is accomplished by scandalously spurious means, all the better for the mob. That increases its sense of power and self-justification. Saying NO! To them is an act of liberation.
The Darwinist commenters below the tweet would put one in mind of coyotes except that coyotes must, perforce, have pack standards. They can’t just howl ANYTHING they please… Well, we shall see what happens next.
We are told that the warning signs “were there all along”
Chuck Dinerstein, MD, argues the case. ” You would think that if a fraction of that money, say 1%, which is about $30 million, could be redirected at paying for peer-review, we might get a better quality product.”
At The Scientist: “Like Malički, Watson and other researchers note that the changes don’t address larger, more general issues highlighted by Surgisphere’s papers, including journals’ reluctance to push authors to share data and code for published studies, and an overall lack of transparency in how papers are reviewed before and after publication. “
It’s one of the biggest problems in science—and computers are part of the problem.
Retraction Watch: Erm, about that concerning peer review process. Elsevier also was the publisher of the equally risible book chapter claiming that COVID-19 came to earth on a meteorite.
But now, here’s a problem: In the world of the war on math, what, exactly, is wrong with science fiction replacing science? If 2 + 2 does not necessarily = 4, how can we be expected to even know that bogosity is wrong?
Apparently another team found a similar fossil which it thinks is a lizard.
Over time, science in many areas is likely to wither as it comes more and more under the domination of trolls with agendas. And, curiously, being a Darwinist is no longer a form of protection.
Beware of internet history. It is written on little electronic signals, not paper…
On account of stuff he said that is mostly correct and even obvious but exposes the cult of the science expert.
There were setbacks.
For the record, Uncommon Descent has no official opinion on this mess except to say, yes, a fumigator is badly needed at The Lancet.