There was a report in the economist a few months back about how many science research papers don't get published because they were unsuccessful. Honestly, I think that 'unsuccessful' experiments should get published online or offline, as they are legitimate results that need to be taken note of or reviewed. Newsworthiness of the findings should not be the top priority, but it appears that in some instances it has been the case.
The report also spoke of the difficulty in accurately replicating an experiment by a 3rd party, and the apparent mess that the whole system of peer review is in. This of course means a progressively shakier foundation for future research.
Do you guys agree that some fields of science have reached this stage? If so, can the situation be remedied? What steps might need to be taken?
omkaram2 karma
There was a report in the economist a few months back about how many science research papers don't get published because they were unsuccessful. Honestly, I think that 'unsuccessful' experiments should get published online or offline, as they are legitimate results that need to be taken note of or reviewed. Newsworthiness of the findings should not be the top priority, but it appears that in some instances it has been the case.
The report also spoke of the difficulty in accurately replicating an experiment by a 3rd party, and the apparent mess that the whole system of peer review is in. This of course means a progressively shakier foundation for future research.
Do you guys agree that some fields of science have reached this stage? If so, can the situation be remedied? What steps might need to be taken?
Thanks!
View HistoryShare Link