41–50 of 207 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't "statistically insignificant" mean papers which conclude something like "we find no correlation between X and Y"?
No! It means the data is too noisy to make any conclusion.
Why don’t research groups just publish to their own websites or directories like arxiv? What’s the role of an academic journal in 2020? Honest question, I’d love to see more blogging from hard science academics but I’m wondering if there’s a reason why that’s challenging or if it’s just academic culture. We should have a Substack/OnlyFans for scientists.
While we're at it, why not make public whoever audited or referred the paper? Why does that need to be secret?
One the one hand, that's pretty nihilistic. On the other hand, it's cool that I was able to explore it and come to the conclusion that everything is fine and some aspects of the past are unknowable.
I think the journal itself could be quite valuable and hope it succeeds. Perhaps this model can be generalized to other fields too.
The problem is researchers aren't going to want/be able to spend the time to properly document negative/unsurprising results. The financial incentives in place don't support it despite its incredible value.