11–20 of 34 posts
Everyone gives Science, Cell and Nature way too much credit. They are flashy, but tend to have less substance than other journals. Their retraction rate is also much higher. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3187237/figure/F...
Japan has a strange culture: Their scientific funding is based largely on hanging out naked at a hot spring with the guy that controls the budget.
Japan has a strange culture: Their scientific funding is based largely on hanging out naked at a hot spring with the guy that controls the budget.
Everyone gives Science, Cell and Nature way too much credit. They are flashy, but tend to have less substance than other journals. Their retraction rate is also much higher. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3187237/figure/F...
I'm not even going to go into why the correlation between influence and retraction rate exists, that should be blatantly obvious to any with a background in any of the sciences. Also, we want retractions, it means science works.
Again the people who say Philosophy is dead to science I say UGH learn from history. Philosophy and Ethics are still the heart of progress. How many Scientific papers that were "peer reviewed" have we now learned that the science behind the scientific papers have seriously been lacking. The cost is in the suffering and deaths of patients who didn't get help needed that research would have found if they didn't have to…
If you want to attribute deaths to bad science, then you must also attribute far more to bad philosophy.
So what's the role of Nature group here? Print colourful printouts of sloppily-reviewed papers? I feel somehow these "publishers" (basically, they're just glorified PDF repositories) aren't really worth the money they're getting.
http://retractionwatch.com/2014/03/10/co-author-of-controver...
Stem cell research is a "hot" research area, because it can be hyped as a cure-all, so we should all be especially skeptical of initial reports on new stem cell research. In general, we have to distinguish submissions to Hacker News based on press releases (there are way too many of those) from review articles by experienced researchers that digest the primary research done by a variety of researchers around the world. The latter kind of submission (a review article from a peer-reviewed journal or a book chapter from a practitioner's handbook) would be an excellent submission to Hacker News if it has a link that lives online for free reading, but it would also mean reading something longer than something that can be summed up with a one-line lt;dr summary. Otherwise, a thoughtful article by a science journalist who interviews scientists besides the scientists hyping a new discovery can be much better than a new "peer-reviewed" preliminary research finding. All too often, in our haste for "news" here about medical research, all the hackers here can be led astray about what is really established knowledge in medicine.
Again the people who say Philosophy is dead to science I say UGH learn from history. Philosophy and Ethics are still the heart of progress. How many Scientific papers that were "peer reviewed" have we now learned that the science behind the scientific papers have seriously been lacking. The cost is in the suffering and deaths of patients who didn't get help needed that research would have found if they didn't have to…
And sour grapes. And you are not doing any credit to Philosophers by making it sound like it's science vs philosophy. Or by dismissing everyone else's work from your armchair without showing any hint of your own work or any alternatives. And finally, we should listen to you because you have a Degree?
Again the people who say Philosophy is dead to science I say UGH learn from history. Philosophy and Ethics are still the heart of progress. How many Scientific papers that were "peer reviewed" have we now learned that the science behind the scientific papers have seriously been lacking. The cost is in the suffering and deaths of patients who didn't get help needed that research would have found if they didn't have to…
I see things like this as part of the cost of doing more and more advanced research at a fast pace. You are bound to have a few misses, but all in all you still make progress.
Japan has a strange culture: Their scientific funding is based largely on hanging out naked at a hot spring with the guy that controls the budget.
I would really love to see proof of this claim.
If anyone knows this to be untrue please let me know.