1 in 4 Statisticians Say They Were Asked to Commit Scientific Fraud

Re:1 in 4 Statisticians Say They Were Asked to Commit Scient... by ecocentrik on Saturday November 03, 2018 @12:13AM (#18368647)

> You're liable to alienate all of the authors as well as piss off the editorial board for pointing out that they let a mistake slip through.

Better rewards for uncovering bad science keeps it from devolving into a political contest. If you're not seeing the right incentives in place, you're either missing something or you're seeing an opportunity to capture some value by implementing those incentives.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:1 in 4 Statisticians Say They Were Asked to Commit Scient... by chithanh on Saturday November 03, 2018 @01:35AM (#18368895)

> Better rewards for uncovering bad science keeps it from devolving into a political contest.

No. If you increase rewards for uncovering bad science, it will just lead to false accusations.

> If you're not seeing the right incentives in place

Some people think that the very existence of incentives is the problem here. https://hbr.org/1993/09/why-incentive-plans-cannot-work

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:1 in 4 Statisticians Say They Were Asked to Commit Scient... by ecocentrik on Saturday November 03, 2018 @10:32AM (#18370326)

> If you increase rewards for uncovering bad science, it will just lead to false accusations.

Isn't that what this study suggests is already happening, in as much as false accusations are just more bad science?

> Some people think that the very existence of incentives is the problem here. https://hbr.org/1993/09/why-incentive-plans-cannot-work

This article is full of opaque generalizations about human behavior that more accurately describes the baser impulses of individuals attempting to game systems they don't understand (participants in psychological experiments) and don't so much reflect the actions of self-conscious professionals with any semblance of dedication to their fields.

[ Parent | on HN ]