Why are Gamers Much Better than Scientists at Catching Fraud? (1 Viewer)

[GroveDiesel]

Article

“Skeptics and whistleblowers who spot potential fraud in researchers’ work are routinely ignored, stonewalled, or sometimes attacked by universities or journal editors who don’t have the time or inclination to dig into potentially forged (and potentially dangerous) studies.”

“The entire purpose of the scientific endeavor is brought into question if its gatekeepers—the reviewers and editors and others who are supposed to be the custodians of scientific probity—are so often presented with evidence of fraud and so often fail to take action.”

Our current science system really is in a more precarious position that most believe. Good science is critical to bettering the world. But there are very real concerns regarding much of the scientific studies that are published today and the rigor of the efforts made to verify research is very very poor in general.

 

[kface]

Article

“Skeptics and whistleblowers who spot potential fraud in researchers’ work are routinely ignored, stonewalled, or sometimes attacked by universities or journal editors who don’t have the time or inclination to dig into potentially forged (and potentially dangerous) studies.”

“The entire purpose of the scientific endeavor is brought into question if its gatekeepers—the reviewers and editors and others who are supposed to be the custodians of scientific probity—are so often presented with evidence of fraud and so often fail to take action.”

Our current science system really is in a more precarious position that most believe. Good science is critical to bettering the world. But there are very real concerns regarding much of the scientific studies that are published today and the rigor of the efforts made to verify research is very very poor in general.

The rise of fake journals is going to be biggest issues facing scientists going into the future. 

There are always going to be people like this and quite frankly, it took awhile, but they were caught.  There are two types of science:

1. you are doing bit research focused on something so small that it moves the field just a tiny bit and the news doesn't cover it.  

2. you make a grand discovery

It's those little ones that don't receive the same type of scrutiny.  

 

[GroveDiesel]

The rise of fake journals is going to be biggest issues facing scientists going into the future. 

There are always going to be people like this and quite frankly, it took awhile, but they were caught.  There are two types of science:

1. you are doing bit research focused on something so small that it moves the field just a tiny bit and the news doesn't cover it.  

2. you make a grand discovery

It's those little ones that don't receive the same type of scrutiny.  

That’s a fairly good point, but as the article points out, the guy that published 84 fraudulent studies actually published some pretty important stuff.

I think it also should give pause to the proliferation of meta studies. Taking a bunch of studies and throwing them together to try to come up with a conclusion based on a now larger group may be incredibly problematic if a lot of those small studies have bad data. 

 

[kface]

That’s a fairly good point, but as the article points out, the guy that published 84 fraudulent studies actually published some pretty important stuff.

I think it also should give pause to the proliferation of meta studies. Taking a bunch of studies and throwing them together to try to come up with a conclusion based on a now larger group may be incredibly problematic if a lot of those small studies have bad data. 

Well i think it's a stretch to say 'a lot' but I agree, it's easy to publish data you just made up.  You have 100s of studies around you for which to already take data from and just alter it a bit.  

There is a ton of pressure to publish in the research community and this is obviously an extension of that.  

The thing with science is that at some point someone is going to replicate your work and then questions are going to be asked.  It does have a nice way of weeding itself out but it may take some time.  

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Our current science system really is in a more precarious position that most believe. Good science is critical to bettering the world. But there are very real concerns regarding much of the scientific studies that are published today and the rigor of the efforts made to verify research is very very poor in general.

This is true for the social sciences too, only moreso.  It is extremely easy to slip fraudulent research through peer review if you have no ethics.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The thing with science is that at some point someone is going to replicate your work and then questions are going to be asked.  It does have a nice way of weeding itself out but it may take some time.  

Sure, but look at all the academic psychologists who built their careers on fraudulent research.  We know NOW that it's fraudulent thanks to the replication movement in that field, but Zimbardo (for example) is done.  What does he care, at this point? 

 

[kface]

Sure, but look at all the academic psychologists who built their careers on fraudulent research.  We know NOW that it's fraudulent thanks to the replication movement in that field, but Zimbardo (for example) is done.  What does he care, at this point? 

Behavioral is obviously must trickier because of all the cofounding factors involved in the research.  Much easier to be deviant in that field there is no doubt.

Also tons of money in it.  Everyone wants to cure depression/violence/etc....

 

[Doug B]

The thing with science is that at some point someone is going to replicate your work and then questions are going to be asked.

Huge point, and this is why people should not look for the "one new study that overturns it all!!!" Wait for enough replicating studies to corroborate the results, and then for consensus to shift.

 

[kface]

Huge point, and this is why people should not look for the "one new study that overturns it all!!!" Wait for enough replicating studies to corroborate the results, and then for consensus to shift.

The problem of course is that science has been badly politicized and marketized (probably not a word )  

It's a patient process that will usually root out of most issues over time.  

 

[joffer]

The problem of course is that science has been badly politicized and marketized (probably not a word )  

It's a patient process that will usually root out of most issues over time.  

and the reporting on it needs a lot of help.  clickbait on science news is brutal right now.

 

[shadrap]

This is true for the social sciences too, only moreso.  It is extremely easy to slip fraudulent research through peer review if you have no ethics.

or inputting selective data to come to the conclusion you want.