Re:Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
by kelipso on Tuesday September 24, 2024 @07:08PM
(#41641954)
Research fraud is likely very rare but it's not about a few stories that show up about unreplicable studies that stick out. There was a study a few years where they tried to replicate a bunch of top cited psychology papers and the majority of the experiments were not replicated. Then people did the same for other disciplines afterwards and, while it wasn't as bad as psychology, there were plenty of papers they couldn't replicate.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
by tptacek on Tuesday September 24, 2024 @08:13PM
(#41642353)
Every time this topic comes up I'm reminded of what Stefan Savage, a hero of mine, said about academic papers ("studies", in the sense we're discussing here): they are the beginnings of conversations, not the end. It shouldn't shock people that results in papers might not replicate; papers aren't infallible, which makes sense when you consider the process that produces them.
Re:Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
by robwwilliams on Tuesday September 24, 2024 @11:11PM
(#41643343)
That is a generous interpretation. But in many cases we try our best to dress up studies and tell good stories—-preferably stories with compelling positive statistics and with slick figures. The story telling often obscures the key data.
Re:Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
by mrguyorama on Wednesday September 25, 2024 @12:48PM
(#41649329)
No, "Science" "Journalists" who have zero scientific training will take an extremely limited study and completely miss the point and make wild claims that the general population becomes convinced the "science" said.
Scientists do not consider a study to be more than an observation. What matters to scientists is the totality of the evidence.
There are several chemistry youtubers who have failed to "reproduce" papers they are working from. Does that mean chemistry is a farce and doesn't work? No, it means some chemist at some point in history failed to write something down, mostly because they didn't even know or realize it mattered. Science is incredibly difficult and we can only hope to be okay at it.
Re:Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
by robwwilliams on Wednesday September 25, 2024 @02:30PM
(#41650423)
Both ways. I have published several hundred peer-reviewed papers in biomedical research over 40 years. My experience is that almost all papers are written to maximize impact on the minds of readers—-ideally hewing to the data and limits of the design. But often the story telling aspects of a paper and the data snd design do not see eye-to-eye.
Re:Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
by tptacek on Wednesday September 25, 2024 @01:30PM
(#41649769)
Just keep in mind while we're scare-quoting "journalists" that the scientists on HN also seem to think a failure of replication in a paper is a devastating indictment of whole scientific fields. It's not like we're that much better.