For as many times as it gets mentioned, you'd think something would change.
For as many times as it gets mentioned, you'd think something would change. Ha ha ha, nevermind. One specific bias they wave at as it goes by is the issue of trying to get anything published on negative results. I suppose that since you will overwhelmingly have negative results, that this started as a way of limiting how much got published, and everyone assumed there were negative results. However, they also assumed negative results were neither important nor informative.
Developing a way of understanding and curating negative results for publication would probably also make a big difference in the number of, how do I put this non-judgmentally, "filler" publications that happen so someone can continue to justify their career and their funding. Maybe then we could shift toward less junk and more information.
http://www.vox.com/2015/3/13/8202465/sex-pheromones
http://www.vox.com/2015/3/13/8202465/sex-pheromones
Developing a way of understanding and curating negative results for publication would probably also make a big difference in the number of, how do I put this non-judgmentally, "filler" publications that happen so someone can continue to justify their career and their funding. Maybe then we could shift toward less junk and more information.
http://www.vox.com/2015/3/13/8202465/sex-pheromones
http://www.vox.com/2015/3/13/8202465/sex-pheromones
Comments
Post a Comment