like you go to the not-believing-until-seeing convention with lies and what? expect to get away with it?

  • andrewth09@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    2 months ago

    Its not just the volume of publishing, but the conclusion of the paper if you publish a paper and the result is boring (the X had negligible impact on Y but its inconclusive) you might still put your grant at risk.

    • bob_lemon@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      2 months ago

      This is also the reason why failed experiments hardly ever get published: “We tried X to achieve Y but it did not work because of Z” is very useful information for people also thinking about trying X, but good luck publishing that paper.

      • thevoidzero@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’ll repeat it as much as I can but we need yo open up new journals for these kind of things.

        All we need is a good cloud for storage, and volunteers. I think comp-sci people do that with https://arxiv.org/

        The journal should accept any user submitted papers but have ranking based on other people, like successful reproducible studies (which is also accepted in journal) will be linked to the original journal. Reviews and such can be their own articles but also linked to the journal.

        That way, undergrads can do projects reproducing previous studies (given resources) which will still give them research credit. Failures and exploration will also give people credit as it helps other people’s research. We can just tag papers for novel ideas,failures, reproducing old paper,reviews, etc.

        I think it has a chance to be very useful if we can pull it off. Although it’ll have the same problems as of social media with upvote system. So some more thoughts needs to be there for the actual implementation.