Is the intention of this site/article to erode trust in science?
I’m all for bad science being pointed out and, hopefully, addressed… but this article feels like it’s heavily leaning on anecdotal evidence that entire swathes of the science community are doing a poor job… the article largely cites tweets which themselves refer to a potentially bad study.
@PotentialProblem
Stuart J Richie knows what he’s writing about. And his goal is to better conditions for serious research
Funding for basic research and projects that need years to be finished is scarce to say the least. Hence the enormous amount of what is published as this seems to soon be the only way to get money to a research department or for researchers to make a living. Getting published, with a clickbait title for the press and be cited is what goes into a CV as well. It’s a rat race.
Is the intention of this site/article to erode trust in science?
I’m all for bad science being pointed out and, hopefully, addressed… but this article feels like it’s heavily leaning on anecdotal evidence that entire swathes of the science community are doing a poor job… the article largely cites tweets which themselves refer to a potentially bad study.
@PotentialProblem
Stuart J Richie knows what he’s writing about. And his goal is to better conditions for serious research
Funding for basic research and projects that need years to be finished is scarce to say the least. Hence the enormous amount of what is published as this seems to soon be the only way to get money to a research department or for researchers to make a living. Getting published, with a clickbait title for the press and be cited is what goes into a CV as well. It’s a rat race.