The deluge of crappy papers must stop

Funding is an especially acute pain point for scientists, who spend up to half their time writing grant proposals. Success in getting funding is heavily tied to metrics such as the h-index, which quantifies the impact of a scientist’s published work. The resulting pressure to “publish or perish” incentivizes the pursuit of novel research over work ... See more

Now pretty much every journal uses outside experts to vet papers, and papers that don’t please reviewers get rejected. You can still write to your friends about your findings, but hiring committees and grant agencies act as if the only science that exists is the stuff published in peer-reviewed journals. This is the grand experiment we’ve been runn

... See more

Scientists often bemoan the state of originality in their field. New ideas are getting “harder to find.” Progress in large fields of science and technology is “slowing down.” Scientific knowledge has been in “clear secular decline.” (One wonders about the originality of their bemoaning.) But today’s researchers aren’t getting worse at coming up wit... See more

Most scientists strongly favor more research funding. They like to portray science in a positive light, emphasizing benefits and minimizing negatives. While understandable, the evidence is that science has slowed enormously per dollar or hour spent. That evidence demands a large-scale institutional response. It should be a major subject in public p... See more

David Lang: Most scientists are under tremendous pressure to constantly publish. That realization caused me to view scientific expertise through the lens of incentives. I’m nervous to use that language, because it’s the same line that conspiracy theorists use to deny and obfuscate facts, but I do think it’s the fault line.

There seems to be an open debate on whether the current system of peer-review actually weeds out papers correctly. This experiment re-submitted 12 already approved papers and 89% of the peer reviewers said the paper shouldn’t be published. More recently hundreds of sham papers managed to get through the process as scammers posed as guest editors.

The invention of peer review may have even  encouraged  bad research. If you try to publish a paper showing that, say, watching puppy videos makes people donate more to charity, and Reviewer 2 says “I will only be impressed if this works for cat videos as well,” you are under extreme pressure to make a cat video study work. Maybe you fudg

... See more