Charles Day in Physics Today (which is already my view in biomedicine 5 years ago)
Their main conclusion is sobering: As the number of papers in a field increases, researchers find it harder to recognize innovative work. Progress seems to be slowing.
It is incredible – but probably some kind of advanced fee scam only.
500€ would be clear bargain compared to the 9500€ that you have to pay here
although there is a surplus of 6000€ for the science writer at fiverr and another 50,000€ lab funding to one of the numerous “science charities” and “patient alliances”.
A great paper by Josie Fenske
More content is great. But, how much of that discovery turns out to be unreliable?
“The number was 2700 in 2020, but we have 3000 retractions a year now,” says Oransky. The steady increase of retractions from year to year is a pattern that can be observed back to the beginning of Retraction Watch, and there’s no indication of slowing down.
Papers are not sacred – this what I have been advocating even after having personal distress after commenting on a PLoS ONE paper. Nevertheless, the new Nature editorial supports my view
What is needed, instead, is a system of publication that is more meritocratic in its evaluation of performance and productivity in the sciences. It should expand the record of a scientific study past an individual paper, including additional material such as worthy blog posts about the results, media coverage and the number of times that the paper has been downloaded.
where Crossmark may jump in Crossmarks weiterlesen
You may wonder about that title, but I do not want to be either an organ donor nor an organ recipient. I do not wish to donate organs after death weiterlesen