perhaps a bit off-topic, but what is coincidental about this and/or what is the relevance of Ghislaine Maxwell here?
For example Donald Barr (father of twice-former US Attorney General Bill Barr) hiring college-dropout Jeffrey Epstein whilst headmaster at the elite Dalton School
Additional fun facts about Donald Barr: he served in US intelligence during WWII, and wrote a sci-fi book featuring child sex slaves
They are never right, but boy do they love to pretend they are.
Robert Maxwell was a crook, he used pension funds (supposed to be ring-fenced for the benefit of the pensioners) to prop up his companies, so, after his slightly mysterious death it was discovered that basically there's no money to pay people who've been assured of a pension when they retire.
He was also very litigious. If you said he was a crook when he was alive you'd better hope you can prove it and that you have funding to stay in the fight until you do. So this means the sort of people who call out crooks were especially unhappy about Robert Maxwell because he was a crook and he might sue you if you pointed it out.
It's why you would say something like "more than coincidental" if you were trying to make some causal claim, like one thing causing the other, or both things coming from the same cause.
So, "What is coincidental about that?" is a weird question. It reads as a rhetorical claim of a causal connection through asking for a denial or a disproof of one.
what is the relevance to the discussion about journals and peer review is my main question.
if i randomly mentioned that your name appears to be an alternate spelling of a 3-band active EQ guitar pedal, coincidentally sharing all of the letters except one, in my reply to you, most people would be confused. that is how i felt when randomly reading "Ghislaine Maxwell" in this context of journals and peer review.
"The crises that face science [from the ending of exponential growth in science funding after the Cold War period] are not limited to jobs and research funds. Those are bad enough, but they are just the beginning. Under stress from those problems, other parts of the scientific enterprise have started showing signs of distress. One of the most essential is the matter of honesty and ethical behavior among scientists.
The public and the scientific community have both been shocked in recent years by an increasing number of cases of fraud committed by scientists. There is little doubt that the perpetrators in these cases felt themselves under intense pressure to compete for scarce resources, even by cheating if necessary. As the pressure increases, this kind of dishonesty is almost sure to become more common.
Other kinds of dishonesty will also become more common. For example, peer review, one of the crucial pillars of the whole edifice, is in critical danger. Peer review is used by scientific journals to decide what papers to publish, and by granting agencies such as the National Science Foundation to decide what research to support. Journals in most cases, and agencies in some cases operate by sending manuscripts or research proposals to referees who are recognized experts on the scientific issues in question, and whose identity will not be revealed to the authors of the papers or proposals. Obviously, good decisions on what research should be supported and what results should be published are crucial to the proper functioning of science.
Peer review is usually quite a good way to identify valid science. Of course, a referee will occasionally fail to appreciate a truly visionary or revolutionary idea, but by and large, peer review works pretty well so long as scientific validity is the only issue at stake. However, it is not at all suited to arbitrate an intense competition for research funds or for editorial space in prestigious journals. There are many reasons for this, not the least being the fact that the referees have an obvious conflict of interest, since they are themselves competitors for the same resources. This point seems to be another one of those relativistic anomalies, obvious to any outside observer, but invisible to those of us who are falling into the black hole. It would take impossibly high ethical standards for referees to avoid taking advantage of their privileged anonymity to advance their own interests, but as time goes on, more and more referees have their ethical standards eroded as a consequence of having themselves been victimized by unfair reviews when they were authors. Peer review is thus one among many examples of practices that were well suited to the time of exponential expansion, but will become increasingly dysfunctional in the difficult future we face.
We must find a radically different social structure to organize research and education in science after The Big Crunch. That is not meant to be an exhortation. It is meant simply to be a statement of a fact known to be true with mathematical certainty, if science is to survive at all. The new structure will come about by evolution rather than design, because, for one thing, neither I nor anyone else has the faintest idea of what it will turn out to be, and for another, even if we did know where we are going to end up, we scientists have never been very good at guiding our own destiny. Only this much is sure: the era of exponential expansion will be replaced by an era of constraint. Because it will be unplanned, the transition is likely to be messy and painful for the participants. In fact, as we have seen, it already is. Ignoring the pain for the moment, however, I would like to look ahead and speculate on some conditions that must be met if science is to have a future as well as a past. ..."
A crazy world we live in where Robert Maxwell's daughter is more notorious than he is.
Shit apple doesn’t fall far from the shit tree I guess.
I know a PhD professor doing post doc or something, and he accepted a scientific study just because it was published in Nature.
He didn't look at methodology or data.
From that point forward, I have never really respected Academia. They seem like bottom floor scientists who never truly understood the scientific method.
It helped that a year later Ivys had their cheating scandals, fake data, and academia wide replication crisis.
People are constantly filtering everything based on heuristics. The important thing is to know how deep to look in any given situation. Hopefully the person you're referring to is proficient at that.
Keep in mind that research scientists need to keep abreast of far more developments than any human could possibly study in detail. Also that 50% of people are below average at their job.
It is if what you read is factually incorrect, yes.
For example, I have read in a textbook that the tongue has very specific regions for taste. This is patently false.
> Keep in mind that research scientists need to keep abreast of far more developments than any human could possibly study in detail. Also that 50% of people are below average at their job.
So, we should probably just discount half of what we read from research scientists as "bad at their job" and not pay much attention to it? Which half? Why are you defending corruption?
So the problem is reduced to "I believe what I want! This person said it and so I think it's true!"
Sounds like politics in a nutshell.
> Sounds like politics in a nutshell.
Again, no. It sounds like the division of labor. The thing that made modern human societies possible.
The jokes write themselves,
Do you grow your own food and sew your own clothes? Also, did you personally etch the microprocessor that runs your computer? The division of labor inherently means trusting others. So when I buy a bag of M4 screws, I'm not going to measure each screw with a micrometer, and I'm not taking X-ray spectra to verify their material composition.
The academic world also used to trust large publishers to take care to actually review papers. It appears that this trust is now misplaced. But I don't think it was somehow stupid.
But one should be free to reject (in the sense that they should be free not to depend on it, or take decisions based on it) things that they did not themselves verify. But today if you do that, you become "anti-science"...and in-fact the people who wants others to "believe" science is anti-science..
The joke times we live in..
Ideally, you should independently verify claims that appear to be particularly consequential or particularly questionable on the surface. But at some point you have to rely on heuristics like chain of trust (it was peer reviewed, it was published in a reputable textbook), or you will never make forward progress on anything.
As a student you are to be directed* in your reading by an expert in the field of study that you are learning from. In many higher level courses a professor will assign multiple textbooks and assign reading from only particular chapters of those textbooks specifically because they have vetted those chapters for accuracy and alignment with their curriculum.
As a researcher and scientist a very large portion of your job is verifying and then integrating the research of others into your domain knowledge. The whole purpose of replicating studies is to look critically at the methodology of another scientist and try as hard as you can to prove them wrong. If you fail to prove them wrong and can produce the same results as them, they have done Good Science.
A textbook is the product of scientists and researchers Doing Science and publishing their results, other scientists and researchers verifying via replication, and then one of those scientists or researchers who is an expert in the field doing their best to compile their knowledge on the domain into a factually accurate and (relatively) easy to understand summary of the collective research performed in a specific domain.
The fact is that people make mistakes, and the job of a professor (who is an expert in a given field) is to identify what errors have made it through the various checks mentioned above and into circulation, often times making subjective judgement calls about what is 'factual enough' for the level of the class they are teaching, and leverage that to build a curriculum that is sound and helps elevate other individuals to the level of knowledge required to contribute to the ongoing scientific journey.
In short, it's not a bad thing if you're learning a subject by yourself for your own purposes and are not contributing to scientific advancement or working as an educator in higher-education.
* You can self-study, but to become an expert while doing so requires extremely keen discernment to be able to root out the common misconceptions that proliferate in any given field. In a blue-collar field this would be akin to picking up 'bad technique' by watching YouTube videos published by another self-taught tradesman; it's not always obvious when it happens.
Not really in my humble opinion. Sure, the Popperian vibe is kind of fundamental, but the whole truncation into binary-valued true/false categories seldom makes sense with many (or even most?) problems for which probabilities, effect sizes, and related things matter more.
And if you fail to replicate a study, they may have still done Good Science. With replications, it should not be about Bad Science and Good Science but about the cumulation of evidence (or a lack thereof). That's what meta-analyses are about.
When we talk about Bad Science, it is about the industrial-scale fraud the article is talking about. No one should waste time replicating, citing, or reading that.
Not really. Both are learning new things. Neither has the time or access to resources to replicate even a small fraction of things learned. Neither will ever make direct use of the vast majority of things learned.
Thus both depend on a cooperative model where trust is given to third parties to whom knowledge aggregation is outsourced. In that sense a textbook and prestigious peer reviewed journals serve the same purpose.
Fake data—you can only get that type of scandal when people are checking the data. I’d be more skeptical of communities that never have that kind of scandal.
The exact reproductions is never published, because journals don't accept them, but if you add a few tweaks here and there you have a nice seed for an article to publish somewhere.
(I may "accept" an article in a field I don't care, but you probably should not thrust my opinion in fields I don't care.)
https://sarahkendzior.substack.com/p/red-lines
tl;dr He is the bridge that uncomfortably links Biden's former Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, to Jeffrey Epstein and Mossad. Hence, *gestures at the last couple of weeks and years*. Dude was just, like, Fraud Central, apparently.
What is currently called "peer review" didn't exist back then, back then the meaning of "peer review" was just the back and forth happening in the open academic literature. Note the inevitable lack of finality in the original concept of peer review, a discussion in the scientific community could go on for 100's of years before being finally resolved. The current concept of "peer review" is closer to the concept of a delegation of some opaque ministry of truth composed of some opaquely selected experts (who often truly intend well) to settle in a short duration the finality.
Some measurements or experiments or questions to be settled can be very actionable and provide highly accurate results, others require much longer gathering of data to draw a clear picture.
The modern concept of "peer review" tries to sell the idea of almost immediate finality, like an economic transaction. In reality it is selling just the illusion, and creating lots of victims ranging from truth, individuals, departments institutions, or even entire fields (think of the replication crisis in psychology) along with any patients or others they treat.
To have research happening, you need someone saying "I want to give money to this researcher". There is an endless queue of people lining up who are ready to take this money and do something with it. The person with money (govt or private) has to use some heuristics to pick. One way is to say "I trust this one, I don't care too much what the project is, I'm sure this person will do something that makes sense". But that is dependent on a track record.
Also who's funding you for replication work? Do you know the pressure you have in tenure track to have a consistent thesis on what you work on?
Literally every single know that designs academia is tuned to not incentivize what you complain about. Its not just journals being picky.
Also the people committing fraud aren't ones who will say "gosh I will replicate things now!" Replicating work is far more difficult than a lot of original work.
Actually, yes, I do. The marginal cost for publishing a study online at this point is essentially nil.
The marginal cost for doing a study remains the same, which is quite a bit. Society doesn't have unlimited scientific talent or hours. Every year someone spends replicating is a year lost to creating something new and valuable.
More than anything. That might legitimately be enough to save science on its own.
(I am not seriously proposing this, but it's interesting to think about distinguishing between the very small amount of truly innovative discovery versus the very long tail of more routine methods development and filling out gaps in knowledge)
But they don't, and that's the problem!
That sort of Orwellian doublethink is exactly the problem. They need to move it forward without improving it, contribute without adding anything, challenge accepted dogma without rocking the boat, and...blech!
> challenge accepted dogma without rocking the boat
You must create paradigm shifts without challenging the current paradigm!
[0] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/katalin-karikos-n...
[1] https://www.globalperformanceinsights.com/post/how-a-rejecte...
I can tell you that it doesn't match my own experience. I also think it doesn't match your example. Those cases of verified image fraud are typically part of replication efforts. The reason the fraud is able to persist is due to the lack of replication, not the abundance of it.
I'm pretty sure most image fraud went completely unrealized even in the case of replication failure. It looks like (pre AI) it was mostly a few folks who did it as a hobby, unrelated to their regular jobs/replication work.
> 'm pretty sure most image fraud went completely unrealized even in the case of replication failure
> It looks like (pre AI) it was mostly a few folks who did it as a hobby
>>> Advanced groups usually replicate their competitor's results in their own hands shortly after publication
Or are you suggesting that the groups you didn't work with (and are thus speculating) are the ones who replicate works and the ones you did work with "just trust their competitor's competence")? Because if this is what you're saying then I do not think this "mostly" matches your experience. That your experience more closely matches my own.
[0] I should take that back. I started in physics (undergrad) and went to CS for grad. Replication could often be de facto in physics, as it was a necessary step towards progress. You often couldn't improve an idea without understanding/replicating it (both theoretical and experimental). But my experience in CS, including at national labs, was that people didn't even run the code. Even when code was provided as part of reviewing artifacts I found that my fellow reviewers often didn't even look at it, let alone run it... This was common at tier 1 conferences mind you... I only knew one other person that consistently ran code.
Replication of an experiment and finding image fraud are kind of done as two different things. If somebody publishes a paper with image fraud, it's still entirely possible to replicate their results(!) and if somebody publishes a paper without any image fraud, it's still entirely possible that others could fail to replicate. Also, most image errors in papers are, imho, due to sloppy handling/individual errors, rather than intentional fraud (it's one of the reasons I worked so hard on automating my papers- if I did make an error, there should be audit log demonstrating the problem, and the error should be rectified easily/quickly in the same way we fix bugs in production at big tech).
This came up a bunch when I was at LBL because of work done by Mina Bissell there on extracellular matrix. She is actively rewriting the paradigm but many people can't reproduce her results- complex molecular biology is notororiously fickle. Usually the answer is, "if you're a good researcher and can't reproduce my work, you come to my lab and reproduce it there" because the variables that affect this are usually things in the lab- the temperature, the reagents, the handling.
See https://www.nature.com/articles/503333a (written by Dr. Bissell).
> physics tends to be much more reproducible than biology, and CS doubly-so.
For CS the problem is wildly different. It should be easy to reproduce as code is trivial to copy. Ignoring the issue of not publishing code alongside results, there's also often subtle things that can make or break works. I've found many times in replication efforts that the success can rely on a single line that essentially comes form a work that was the reference to a reference of the work I'm trying to reproduce. The problem here is honestly more of laziness. In contrast to physics there's an extreme need for speed. In physics (like everyone else I knew) I often felt like I was not smart enough, and that encouraged people to dive deeper and keep improving or to give up. In CS (like everyone else I knew) I often felt like I was not fast enough, and that encouraged people to chase sponsorships from labs that provided more compute, it encouraged a "shotgun" approach (try everything), or for people to give up (aka "GPU poor").
The reason I'm saying this is because I think it is important to understand the different cultures and how replication efforts differ. In physics a replication failure was often assumed to be due to a lack of intelligence. In CS a replication effort is seen as a waste of time. Both are failures of the scientific process. Science is intended to be self-correcting. Replication is one means of this, but at its heart is the pursuit of counterfactual models. This gives us ways to validate, or invalidate, models through means other than direct replication. You can pursue the consequences of the results if you are unable to pursue the replication itself. This is almost always a good path to follow as it is the same one that leads to the extension and improvement of understanding.
There's a lot I agree and disagree with from Dr Bissell's article. Our perspectives may differ due to our different fields, but I do think it also serves as some a point of collaboration, if not on the subject of meta-science. Biology is not unique in having expensive experiments. I want to point out two famous and large physics projects: the LHC's discovery of the Higgs Boson[0] and LIGO's Observation of a Gravitational Wave[1]. The former has 9 full pages of authors (IIRC over 200) while the latter has about 3. These works are both too expensive to replicate while also demonstrating replication. Certainly we aren't going to take another 2 decades to build another CERN and replicate the experiments. But there's an easy to miss question that might also make apparent the existence of replication: who is qualified to review the paper and is not already an author of it? There's definitely some, but it really isn't that many. In these mega projects (and there are plenty more examples) the replication is done through collaboration. Independent teams examine the instruments that make the measurements. Independent teams make measurements, using the same device or different devices (ATLAS isn't the only detector at CERN), different teams independently analyze and process the information, and different teams model and simulate them. With LIGO this is also true. It would be impossible to locate those black holes without at least 2 facilities: one in Hanford (Washington) and the other in Livingston (Louisiana) (and now there's even more facilities). Astrophysics has a long history of this type of replication/collaboration as one team will announce an observation and it is a request for other observations. Observations that often were already made! In HEP (high energy particle physics) this may be less direct, but you'll notice other particle physics labs are in the author list of[0]. That's because despite the exact experiment not being replicatable in other facilities, there are still other experiments done. In the effort to find the Higgs there were many collisions performed at Fermi Lab.
I don't think this same in biophysics, but I think there are nuggets that may be fruitful. Bissell mentions at the end of her argument that she believes replication might have higher success were labs to send scientists to the original labs. I fully agree! That would follow the practice we see in these mega experiments in physics. But I also do think she's brushing off an important factor: it is far quicker and cheaper to replicate works than it is to produce them. You're a scientist, you know how the vast majority of time (and usually the vast majority of money) is "wasted" in failures (it'd be naive to call it waste). Much of this goes away with replication efforts. The greater the collaboration the greater the reduction in time and money.
And I do agree with Bissell in that we probably shouldn't replicate everything[2]. At least if we want to optimize our progress. But also I want to stress that there is no perfect system and there are many roadblocks to progress. Frankly, I'd argue that we waste far more time in things like grant writing and publication revisions. I don't know a single scientist who hasn't had a work rejected due to reviewers either not giving the work enough care or simply because they were unqualified (often working in a different niche so don't understand the minutia of the problem). As for the grant writings, I think they're a necessary evil but I'm also a firm believer of what Mervin Kelly (former director of Bell Labs) said when asked how you manage a bunch of geniuses: "you don't"[3]. You're a scientist, an expert in your domain. You already know what directions to look in. You've only gotten this far because you've been honing that skill. We don't have infinite money, so of course we have to have some bar, but we can already sniff out promising directions and we're much better at sniffing out fraud. Science has been designed to be self-correcting.
[More of a side note]
> Usually the answer is, "if you're a good researcher and can't reproduce my work, you come to my lab and reproduce it there" because the variables that affect this are usually things in the lab- the temperature, the reagents, the handling.
[0] https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.7214
[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.03837
[2] I also would be very cautious about paid replication efforts. I am strongly against it as well as paywalls on publishing (both in creation of publication as well as the access of).
In my own experience I was unable to publish a few works because I was unable to outperform a "competitor" (technically we're all on the same side, right?). So I dig more and more into their work and really try to replicate their work. I can't! Emailing the authors I get no further and only more questions. I submit the papers anyways, adding a section about replication efforts. You guessed it, rejected. With explicit comments from reviewers about lack of impact due to "competitor's" results.
Is an experience I've found a lot of colleagues share. And I don't understand it. Every failed replication should teach us something new. Something about the bounds of where a method works.
It's odd. In our strive for novelty we sure do turn down a lot of novel results. In our strive to reduce redundancy we sure do create a lot of redundancy.
Sometimes the result is wrong, or it's not as big or as general as claimed. Or maybe the provided instructions are insufficient to replicate the work. But sometimes the attempt to replicate a result fails, because the person doing it does not understand the topic well enough.
Maybe they are just doing the wrong things, because their general understanding of the situation is incorrect. Maybe they fail to follow the instructions correctly, because they have subtle misunderstandings. Or maybe they are trying to replicate the result with data they consider similar, but which is actually different in an important way.
The last one is often a particularly difficult situation to resolve. If you understand the topic well enough, you may be able to figure out how the data is different and what should be changed to replicate the result. But that requires access to the data. Very often, one side has the data and another side the understanding, but neither side has both.
Then there is the question of time. Very often, the person trying to replicate the result has a deadline. If they haven't succeeded by then, they will abandon the attempt and move on. But the deadline may be so tight that the authors can't be reasonably expected to figure out the situation by then. Maybe if there is a simple answer, the authors can be expected to provide it. But if the issue looks complex, it may take months before they have sufficient time to investigate it. Or if the initial request is badly worded or shows a lack of understanding, it may not be worth dealing with. (Consider all the bad bug reports and support requests you have seen.)
But in any case, I don't know how we figure out which category of failures it is without it being published. If no one else reads it it substantially reduces the odds of finding the problem.
FWIW, I'm highly in favor of a low bar to publishing. The goal of publishing is to communicate to our peers. I'm not sure why we get so fixated on these things like journal prestige. That's missing the point. My bar is: 1) it is not obviously wrong, 2) it is not plagiarized (obviously or not), 3) it is useful to someone. We do need some filters, but there's already natural filters beyond the journals and conferences. I mean we're all frequently reading "preprints" already, right? I think one of the biggest mistakes we make is conflate publication with correctness. We can't prove correctness anywhere, science is more about the process of elimination. It's silly to think that the review process could provide correctness. It can (imperfectly) invalidate works, but not validate them. It isn't just the public that seems to have this misunderstanding...
For example, most of my work is in algorithmic bioinformatics, which is a small field. Computer scientists developing similar methods may want to replicate my work, but they often lack the practical familiarity with bioinformatics. Bioinformaticians trying to be early adopters may also try to replicate the work, but they are often not familiar with the theoretical aspects. Such a variety of backgrounds can be a fertile ground for misunderstandings.
The latter will use any methods that may yield results. That creates a problem. The people who are in the target audience for a paper and may try to replicate the results often fail to do so, because they lack the expertise. Because their background is too different.
But I think you still haven't understood my point about trade-offs. At least you aren't responding as if these exist.
Our disagreement isn't due to lack of understanding the conditions, it is due to a difference in acceptable limitations. After all, perfection doesn't exist.
So you can't just solve problems like this by bringing up limitations in an opposing viewpoint. I assure you, I was already well aware of every single one you've mentioned...
As for your point, I don't really understand what you are trying to say.
https://blog.plan99.net/replication-studies-cant-fix-science...
Of course I do! Not all of course, and taking (subjectively measured) impact into account. "We tried to replicate the study published in the same journal 3 years ago using a larger sample size and failed to achieve similar results..." OR "after successfully replicating the study we can confirm the therapeutic mechanism proposed by X actually works" - these are extremely important results that are takin into account in meta studies and e.g. form the base of policies worldwide.
This is partly why much of today's science is bs, pure and simple.
> Replicating work is far more difficult than a lot of original work.
Only if the original work was BS. And what, just because it's harder, we shouldn't do it?
I believe people will enthusiastically say yes but that they do not routinely read that journal.
"It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so."
Knowing that something I thought was true was actually false would have saved me years in several situations.
What's even your point here? Hopefully we are at least in agreement that Nature is seen as prestigious and worth looking through precisely because of the sort of content that they publish. Diluting that would dilute their very nature. (Bad pun very much intended sorry I just couldn't resist.)
No. I'm explicitly stating that they are few and far between, but perhaps (not certainly, but conceivably) they shouldn't be.
"What's even your point here?"
My point is that focusing on positive findings and neglecting negative findings perverts the mechanism that makes science work. Science isn't about proving things correct, it's about rooting out errors.
Regardless, I don't think that's at odds with my original assertion that becoming a venue for publishing negative results would undermine the "point" of Nature.
The missing link isn't a venue in which to publish. It's funding to do the work in the first place. Also funding to spend the time writing it up when you find that you've inadvertently been tricked into doing the work while trying to get something that builds on it to work.
Oh there have been times would have loved to be able to apply for one of those!
I'm sure you can more narrowly tune your email alerts FFS.
Hell yeah. We’re all trying to get that Nature paper. Imagine if you could accomplish that by setting the record straight.
All because journals prefer novelty over confirmation. It's like a castle of cards, looks cool but not stable or long-term at all.
I don’t regularly read scientific studies but I’ve read a few of them.
How is it possible that a serious study is harder to replicate than it is to do originally. Are papers no longer including their process? Are we at the point where they are just saying “trust me bro” for how they achieved their results?
> Do you want issues of Nature and cell to be replication studies?
Not issues of Nature but I’ve long thought that universities or the government should fund a department of “I don’t believe you” entirely focused on reproducing scientific results and seeing if they are real
They aren't. GP was on point until that last sentence. Just pretend that wasn't there. It's pretty much always much easier to do something when all the key details have been figured out for you in advance.
There is some difficulty if something doesn't work to distinguish user error from ambiguity of original publication from outright fraud. That can be daunting. But the vast majority of the time it isn't fraud and simply emailing the original author will get you on track. Most authors are overjoyed to learn about someone using their work. If you want to be cynical about it, how else would you get your citation count up?
There are journals dedicated to replication, like ReScience C[1]. But they are niche. Perhaps we should have more of these.
Replications don't have to be in the journals either. As long as money flows, someone will do them, and that is what matters. The randomization will help prevent coordination between authors and replicators.
In a better world, negative studies and replications would count towards tenure, but that is unlikely to occur. At least half of the problem is the pressure to continuously publish positive results.
Publishing a failed replication of the work of a colleague will not earn you many brownie points. I'm stating this as an observation of what is the case, not as something that I think should be the case. If you attack other researchers like this and damage their reputation - even if for valid scientific reason - you'll have a hard time when those colleagues sit on committees deciding about your next grant etc.
Of course if you discover something truly monumental that will override this. But simply sniping down the mediocre research published by other run-of-the-mill researchers will get you more trouble than good. Yes it's directly in contradiction to the textbook-ideal of what science should be, as described to high school students, but there are many things in life this way.
Of course it can be laudable to go on such a crusade despite all this, and to relentlessly pursue scientific truth, etc. but that just won't scale.
That's why replication has to be required and standard. It will hurt to tear off the bandaid, but once the culture shifts, people will hesitate to publish mediocre research in the first place. Without mediocre research flooding the zone, real numbers will dominate and inflated expectations will wither.
"has to be required"... This is a passive construct. Who will do the requiring and what precisely will motivate them to such a change and what will get them the buy-in from the other players in this whole ecosystem, especially the ones who provide the money? What if it turns out that those people who do the funding actually in the deepest of their deepest are fine with "groundbreaking" research results that simply sound like being "groundbreaking" research results to such an extent that their prestige and social status rises enough and are seen as someone who funds such research, instead of truly caring about the actual contents of said research? There is much more demand (backed with money) for (plausibly-claimable) innovation and breakthroughs than supply of real novel thought. It's a bit like the anecdote that all the True Cross relics across Catholic churches weigh more than the cross Jesus carried (not really true as a fact though). As long as there is such strong demand, the system will adapt to allow for the supply finding its way.
top on my list of things to do if i were a billionaire: launch an institute for the sole purpose of reproducing other's findings.
It's not perfect. You don't get any credit unless you can demonstrate a substantial break of the prior work. But it's better than in a lot of other fields.
The biggest problem by far is modern society: Tenure, getting paid a livable wage as a researcher, not getting stack-ranked and eliminated from your organization all overindex on positive research results that are marketable. This "loss function" encourages scientific fraud of sorts.
The simple fact that theories should be falsified and not verified is something that most scientists don’t know.
> Most will refuse to publish replications, negative studies, or anything they deem unimportant, even if the study was conducted correctly.
I don't know what the solution is, but I do know that our fear of people wasting money and creating fraudulent studies has only resulted in wasting money and fraudulent studies. We've removed the verification system while creating strong incentives to cheat (punish or perish, right?).
I think one thing we do need to recognize is that in the grand scheme of things, academia isn't very expensive. A small percentage of a large number is still a large number. Even if half of academics were frauds it would be a small percentage of waste, and pale in comparison to more common waste, fraud, and abuse of government funds.
From what I can tell, the US spent $60bn for University R&D in 2023[0] (less than 1% of US Federal expenditures). But in that same time there was $400bn in waste and fraud through Covid relief funds [1]. With $280bn being straight up fraud. That alone is more than 4x of all academic research funding!!!
I'm unconvinced most in academia are motivated by money or prestige, as it's a terrible way to achieve those things. But I am convinced people are likely to commit fraud when their livelihoods are at stake or when they can believe that a small lie now will allow them to continue doing their work. So as I see it, the publish or perish paradigm only promotes the former. The lack of replication only allows, and even normalizes, the latter. The stress for novelty only makes academics try to write more like business people, trying to sell their product in some perverse rat race.
So I think we have to be a bit honest here. Even if we were to naively make this space essentially unregulated it couldn't be the pinnacle of waste, fraud, and abuse that many claim it is. But I doubt even letting scientists be entirely free from publication requirements that you'd find much waste, fraud, and abuse. Science has a naturally regulating structure. It was literally created to be that way! We got to where we are in through this self regulating system because scientists love to argue about who is right and the process of science is meant to do exactly that. Was there waste and fraud in the past? Yes. I don't think it's entirely avoidable, it'll never be $0 of waste money. But the system was undoubtably successful. And those that took advantage of the system were better at fooling the public than they were their fellow scientists. Which is something I think we've still failed to catch onto
[0] https://usafacts.org/articles/what-do-universities-do-with-t...
[1] https://apnews.com/article/pandemic-fraud-waste-billions-sma...
> You either have something documented and quantified and measured and objective criteria tickboxes and deal with this style of failure mode, or you rely on subjective judgment and assessment and accept the failure mode of bias, nepotism, old boy's clubs etc
You have a fundamental flaw in your argument, one that illustrates a common, yet fundamental, misunderstanding of science. There is no "objective" thing to measure, there are only proxies. I actually recently stumbled on a short by Adam Savage that I think captures this[0], although I think he's a bit wrong too. Regardless of precision we are always using a proxy. A tape measure does not define a meter, it only serves as a reference to compare with. A reference where not only the human makes error when reading, but that the reference itself has error[1]. So there are no direct measurements, there are only measurements by proxy.
You may have heard someone say "science doesn't prove things, it disproves them", and that's in part a consequence to this. Our measurements are meaningless without an understanding of their uncertainty (both quantifiable and unquantifiable!) as well as the assumptions they are made under.
I'm not trying to be pedantic here, I think this precision in understanding matters to the conversation. My argument is that by discounting those errors that they accumulate. We've had a pretty good run. This current system has only really started to be practiced in the 60s and 70's. So 50 years is a lot of time for error to accumulate. 50 years is a lot of time for small, seemingly insignificant, and easy to dismiss errors to accumulate into large, intangible, and complex problems.
There's something that I guess is more subtle in my argument: science is self-correcting. I don't mean "science" as the category of pursuits that seek truths about the world around us, but I mean "science" as a systematic approach to obtaining knowledge. A key reason this self-correction happens is due to replication. But in reality that is a consequence of how we pin down truth itself. We seek causal structures. More specifically, we seek counterfactual models. Assuming honest practitioners, failures of reproduction happen for primarily for one of two reasons: 1) ambiguity of communication between the original experimenters and those replicating or 2) a variation in conditions. 2) is actually quite common and tells us something new about that causal structure. In practice it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to exactly replicate the conditions of the original experiment, so even with successful replication we gain information about the robustness of the results.
But why am I talking about all this? Because without the explicit acknowledgement of these limitations we seem to easily forget them. We are often treating substantially more subjective measures (such as impact or novelty) as far more objective than we would treat even physical measurements. It should be absolutely no surprise that things like impact are at best extremely difficult to measure. Even with a time machine we may not accurately measure the impact of a work for decades, or more. Ironically, a major reason for a work's impact to be found only after decades (or centuries) is the belief that at its time it had no impact, and was a dead end. You'd be amazed at how common this actually is. It's where jokes similar to how everything is named after the second person to discover something, the first being Euler[2]. But science is self-correcting. Even if a discovery of Euler's was lost, it is only a matter of time before someone (independently) rediscovers it.
I'm talking about this because there is no perfect system. Because a measurement without the acknowledge of its uncertainty is far less accurate than a measurement with. I'm talking about this because we will always have errors and the existence of them is not a reason to dismiss things. Instead we have to compare and contrast both the benefits and limits of competing ideas. We are only doing ourselves a disservice by pretending the limits don't exist. And if we mindlessly pursue objective measurements we'll only end up finding we've metric hacked our way into reading tea leaves. As we advance in any subject the minutia always ends up being the critical element (see [0]) and so the problem is it doesn't matter if we're 90% "objective" and 10% reading the tea leaves. Not when the decisions are made differentiating the 10%. In reality we're not even good at measuring that 90% when it comes to determining how productive academics are[3-5]
[0] https://www.youtube.com/shorts/JGa_X4QfE-0
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EstiCb1gA3U
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_named_after_Leo...
[3] https://briankeating.substack.com/p/peter-higgs-wouldnt-get-...
[4] https://yoshuabengio.org/2020/02/26/time-to-rethink-the-publ...
[5] See the two links in this comment as further evidence. They are about relatively recent Nobel works that faced frequent rejections https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47340733
There's a cost in either direction. You can't ignore the the costs of reading the tea leaves while acknowledging the costs of unnecessary work. Both have costs.
>> Instead we have to compare and contrast both the benefits and limits of competing ideas. We are only doing ourselves a disservice by pretending the limits don't exist.The cost of academic fraud should also include the indirect costs of bad decision making.
The Covid relief funds were only needed because politicians implemented extremely aggressive policies based on unproven epidemiological models built on fraudulent practices. I investigated all this extensively at the time and it was really sad/shocking how non-existent intellectual standards are in the field of epidemiology. The models were trash RNGs that couldn't have been validated even if they'd tried, which they never had because the field doesn't consider validation to be necessary to get a paper published. So the models made wildly wrong predictions based on untested, buggy, non-replicable models, which then led to lockdowns, which led to economic catastrophe, which led to the relief programme. All of the fraud in that programme - really the entire cost of it - should be laid at the feet of academic fraud.