News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Nature retracts controversial superconductivity paper by embattled physicist. Parent comment

Re:Nature retracts controversial superconductivity paper by ... by armchairhacker on Tuesday November 07, 2023 @07:37PM (#38185235)
Great way to test peer-review: submit a bunch of BS articles, particularly with big words and notable authors, and see which ones get published where

In fact I know for a fact this has been done at least once before (at least with the big words): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCIgen

But it should be done in every field, regularly

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nature retracts controversial superconductivity paper by ... by vouaobrasil on Tuesday November 07, 2023 @08:10PM (#38185457)
A better way would be to change the system so that publications in big-name journals are not important for career advancement.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nature retracts controversial superconductivity paper by ... by fooker on Tuesday November 07, 2023 @10:24PM (#38186363)
What is your alternative solution?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nature retracts controversial superconductivity paper by ... by MarkusQ on Wednesday November 08, 2023 @12:05AM (#38187012)
Seems clear to me: "change the system so that publications in big-name journals are not important for career advancement." There are many fields that don't have this requirement, or anything like it, and the suggestion is that academia join their ranks.

The "alternative solution" to having a thing that wacks people on the head every Tuesday is...not having it.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nature retracts controversial superconductivity paper by ... by EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK on Wednesday November 08, 2023 @01:35AM (#38187416)
Businesses have money. Governments have votes. What measurable quantity do you propose for scientific work? Votes of colleagues? It's even more corrupt.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nature retracts controversial superconductivity paper by ... by fooker on Wednesday November 08, 2023 @03:38AM (#38188029)
Are you familiar with the concept of Chesterton’s fence?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nature retracts controversial superconductivity paper by ... by vouaobrasil on Wednesday November 08, 2023 @06:29AM (#38188985)
Well, simply, for senior researchers to stop making big-time publications so high-up on the list to hire people. I know quite a few senior researchers, and they do have some say in it...
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nature retracts controversial superconductivity paper by ... by corethree on Tuesday November 07, 2023 @11:06PM (#38186646)
It's like PRs in software. Nobody really wants to dig through all that shit. Quick scan. Approve.. and move on.
[ Parent | on HN ]