Science Memes

10923 readers

1994 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
Keep it rooted (on topic).
No spam.
Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

[email protected]

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

998

i will never understand scientific fraud (files.catbox.moe)

submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

91 comments fedilink hide all child comments

like you go to the not-believing-until-seeing convention with lies and what? expect to get away with it?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 113 points 2 months ago (3 children)

If Scientists don't publish they do not get grants. Grants it turns out pay their rent, and things like food, and transportation, and kids summer camp. Failure also has a detrimental effect in the attaining of grant monies. There's a direct line here. For those that choose to go down this road, they do it for as long as they can get away with it, then try to plea bargain.

[–] [email protected] 102 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Academia needs to be restructured, just like everything else

[–] msage 16 points 2 months ago

Hey, that sounds like Communism!1!

Count me in!

[–] [email protected] 50 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Its not just the volume of publishing, but the conclusion of the paper if you publish a paper and the result is boring (the X had negligible impact on Y but its inconclusive) you might still put your grant at risk.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 2 months ago (2 children)

This is also the reason why failed experiments hardly ever get published: "We tried X to achieve Y but it did not work because of Z" is very useful information for people also thinking about trying X, but good luck publishing that paper.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago

I'll repeat it as much as I can but we need yo open up new journals for these kind of things.

All we need is a good cloud for storage, and volunteers. I think comp-sci people do that with https://arxiv.org/

The journal should accept any user submitted papers but have ranking based on other people, like successful reproducible studies (which is also accepted in journal) will be linked to the original journal. Reviews and such can be their own articles but also linked to the journal.

That way, undergrads can do projects reproducing previous studies (given resources) which will still give them research credit. Failures and exploration will also give people credit as it helps other people's research. We can just tag papers for novel ideas,failures, reproducing old paper,reviews, etc.

I think it has a chance to be very useful if we can pull it off. Although it'll have the same problems as of social media with upvote system. So some more thoughts needs to be there for the actual implementation.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

I so badly wish this was publishable. It would be SO useful.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Yeah, I'm really not surprised this a more widespread thing. Hell, Wakefield got followers to this day buying his dumb books. Fraud pays