• Troy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    2 months ago

    Ewww - the whole point of peer review is to catch this shit. If peer review isn’t working, we should be going back to monographs :)

    • decerian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      77
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I disagree there - peer review as a system isn’t designed to catch fraud at all, it’s designed to ensure that studies that get published meet a minimum standard for competence. Reviewers aren’t asked to look for fake data, and in most cases aren’t trained to spot it either.

      Whether we need to create a new system that is designed to catch fraud prior to publication is a whole different question.

      • Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        56
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Whether we need to create a new system that is designed to catch fraud prior to publication is a whole different question

        That system already exists. It’s what replication studies are for. Whether we desperately need to massively bolster the amount of replication studies done is the question, and the answer is ‘yes’.

      • Troy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        2 months ago

        We could award a certain percentage of grants and grad students should be able to get degrees doing replication studies. Unfortunately everyone is chasing total paper count and impact factor rankings and shit.

        • Rolando@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Maybe we should consider replication studies to be “service to the community” when judging career accomplishments. Like, maybe you never chaired a conference but you published several replication studies instead. You could get your Masters students and/or undergrads to do the replications. We’d need journals that focus on replication studies, though.

          • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Nah. Enough of this service to community stuff. It always ends up meaning us doing more work for free that someone else profits from. It should be incentiviced with grant funds. Studies I would want to make sure undergo replication are industry sponsored. Industry sponsored studies should have to pay into a pool and certain studies would be selected for replication analysis with these funds.

      • evasive_chimpanzee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yeah, reviewing is about making sure the methods are sound and the conclusions are supported by the data. Whether or not the data are correct is largely something that the reviewer cannot determine.

        If a machine spits out a reading of 5.3, but the paper says 6.2, the reviewer can’t catch that. If numbers are too perfect, you might be suspicious of it, but it’s really not your job to go all forensic accountant on the data.

    • Wolf314159@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      You’re conflating peer review and studies that verify results. The problem is that verifying someone else’s results isn’t sexy, doesn’t get you grant money, and doesn’t further your career. Redoing the work and verifying the results of other “pioneers” is important, but thankless work. Until we insensitivise doing the boring science by funding all fundamental science research more, this kind of problem will only get worse.

  • D61 [any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    2 months ago

    Probably not a good idea to phrase it as “earned” retractions.

    It shouldn’t be a competition to see who is the worst.