{"id":1719,"date":"2008-10-06T17:08:56","date_gmt":"2008-10-06T15:08:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/?p=1719"},"modified":"2008-10-12T12:03:40","modified_gmt":"2008-10-12T10:03:40","slug":"the-price-we-have-to-pay-for-better-science","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/sciencesurf\/2008\/10\/the-price-we-have-to-pay-for-better-science\/","title":{"rendered":"The price we have to pay for better science"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>A paper by Young \/ Ioannidis \/ Al-Ubaydli attacks the oligopoly of biomedical journals (just as I have done here <a href=\"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/2008\/09\/17\/dealing-with-noise\/\">many times<\/a> including also the idea of a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/2007\/04\/02\/the-winners-curse\/\">winner&#8217;s curse<\/a>). From the press release<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>The current system of publishing medical and scientific research provides &#8220;a distorted view of the reality of scientific data that are generated in the laboratory and clinic,&#8221; says a team of researchers in this week&#8217;s PLoS Medicine [&#8230;]<br \/>\nThere is an &#8220;extreme imbalance,&#8221; they say, between the abundance of supply (the output of basic science laboratories and clinical investigations) and the increasingly limited venues for publication (journals with sufficiently high impact).<!--more--> The result is that only a small proportion of all research results are eventually chosen for publication, and these results are unrepresentative of scientists&#8217; repeated samplings of the real world.<br \/>\nThe authors argue that there is a moral imperative to reconsider how scientific data are judged and disseminated.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>This is is something that comes right from my heart although I haven&#8217;t argued so far with any moral instance. By criticizing the impact optimzing strategy the authors make a really good point as<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\nthe more extreme, spectacular results [&#8230;] may be preferentially published. Journals serve as intermediaries and may suffer minimal immediate consequences for errors of over- or mis-estimation, but it is the consumers of these laboratory and clinical results (other expert scientists; trainees choosing fields of endeavour; physicians and their patients; funding agencies; the media) who are \u00e2\u20ac\u0153cursed\u00e2\u20ac\u009d if these results are severely exaggerated\u00e2\u20ac\u201dovervalued and unrepresentative of the true outcomes of many similar experiments.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>&#8230; a perfect description why we feel so frequently disappointed from the many unreplicable genetic association studies &#8211; spending research funds on results that can not be verified &#8211; colored peter or the bucks stops here. Bravo, the best paper this year, yea, yea.<\/p>\n\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<div class=\"bottom-note\">\n  <span class=\"mod1\">CC-BY-NC Science Surf , accessed 29.04.2026<\/span>\n <\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A paper by Young \/ Ioannidis \/ Al-Ubaydli attacks the oligopoly of biomedical journals (just as I have done here many times including also the idea of a winner&#8217;s curse). From the press release The current system of publishing medical and scientific research provides &#8220;a distorted view of the reality of scientific data that are &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/sciencesurf\/2008\/10\/the-price-we-have-to-pay-for-better-science\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">The price we have to pay for better science<\/span> <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[1865],"class_list":["post-1719","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-philosophy-of-science","tag-publication-policy"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1719","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1719"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1719\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1719"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1719"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1719"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}