When Scientists Read Research Articles in Scientific Journals, They Apply Skepticism in Order to
/https://tf-cmsv2-smithsonianmag-media.s3.amazonaws.com/filer/eb/be/ebbe2dea-5f1a-4806-9bf0-d6bb207c63d7/magazine_stack.jpg)
Even though we're experiencing some strategic defoliation in the homo space plan, life in academia goes on—papers are published, meetings are attended, interns are selected to work with scientists and engineers, and proposals are being submitted and funded. Despite the community's much publicized fence over the direction of the program and questions virtually its future, this turmoil hasn't slowed the engine of scientific debate—publication of research results.
In order to become role of the edifice of knowledge, scientists must publish papers to make their discoveries known. The principal means for this is the scientific paper, a written contribution consisting of betwixt 5,000 and 30,000 words (more or less) forth with images, graphics and tables. These papers are submitted to journals that usually specialize in certain topical areas. But earlier a scientific newspaper is published, it must undergo reviews by competent experts—selected individuals who cheque the work for technical errors and procedure, and comment on the soundness of the author(southward)' conclusions. Usually, these reviewers are scientists working in the same field—people expected to exist current on the latest knowledge and thus able to evaluate the merit of the new piece of work.
A falling domino effect on the edifice blocks of cognition begins once miscues find their manner into the mix. Peer review is an important system of "checks and balances" that ensures that science remains a dispassionate search for the truth about how nature operates. When slipshod and unreliable work passes peer review, as contempo manufactures have suggested, science becomes less pure and the process of review becomes tainted. A different sort of "review" has shown that many papers appearing in academic journals are fakes—jargon-laden hoaxes that passed through the crucible of peer review. This evidence comes from a computer algorithm developed to observe false results (papers mechanically assembled by people). The estimator programme was applied to several prominent scientific journals, and it identified a disturbing number of fraudulent papers.
An amazing matter near this study is that the fake papers identified using this computer program would have been hands seen to exist bogus if somebody knowledgeable had taken ii minutes to browse through the manuscript. What this says is that the peer review procedure is non quite every bit rigorous as many believed and relied on it to exist. My concern is slightly different simply related—that the process of writing, submitting and (nearly astoundingly) the reading of the scientific literature is not very rigorous either. Let me to offering an anecdote of a contempo feel equally evidence.
A few years agone, I was co-writer on a paper dealing with some new mapping of the Moon. It was done to clarify what we knew and to better understand the context of collected samples effectually one of the Apollo landing sites. Our work led us to conclude the traditional interpretation of the geology of this site was incorrect and that perhaps other events (less appreciated) had been more influential in its evolution. The conclusions of our work led to ii alternative hypotheses (call them A and B), each quite unmistakably different, and each leading to two wholly singled-out implications for lunar history. Nosotros emphasized in the paper that we had no preference between model A and model B, and that boosted work was necessary to clarify what our results might hateful for these interpretations of the samples from that site.
Shortly after our newspaper came out, a popular article (written by an agile scientist) discussed our results and their possible implications. To my surprise, this article claimed that nosotros had argued for interpretation B in our paper (a conclusion that flew in the face up of the fact that we had specifically and deliberately stated that we had no preference). Clearly, the person writing the popular piece did not read our paper (or did non empathise information technology or ruddy-picked a conclusion). I would accept simply written off this episode as sloppiness, only this besides happens with other papers—I often hear these works misquoted and misinterpreted in meetings and conferences.
What seems to be happening is that even though the volume of published scientific papers increases every year, fewer and fewer of them are really beingness read. I do non await a paper published on some cabalistic topic in a specialized technical periodical to become fodder for everyday chat, but I would expect scientists working in the field to exist conversant with what has been done in their areas of specialization, both historically and currently. Sadly, that doesn't seem to exist the example and this is dangerous.
When my contemporaries and I were lowly graduate students, nosotros may not have known how to comport scientific inquiry, but nosotros were expected to read the literature and acquire what had already been done in our fields. I knew what each scientist believed about a given phenomena and why they believed it. I could almost recite the bibliographic references of some classic, key papers from retentiveness. Lately, I find many younger scientists to be singularly uninformed about the land of their own fields. Few have read scientific papers more than deeply than to be able to vaguely outline their principal conclusions, and almost none understand the assumptions and experimental procedure behind nigh studies.
This lack of familiarity with the literature has arisen simultaneously with the ability to search the web for instant information. The Internet can be a neat boon—as a fast and convenient source of data, the web can serve as an excellent reference volume. However, at that place is a growing tendency to gather facts and quasi-facts and utilise them as a substitute for noesis. Assembling an piece of cake drove of facts and data drawn from Internet searches (without an understanding of the contextual setting) allows faux concepts to develop—miscues that become widely circulated in the repeat chamber of the web. This subversive process is amplified when the "popularity" of a result is used to rank the order of returns of a given search. The dominoes continue to fall when errors are given an air of authority equally they're regurgitated on the multitude of Cyberspace give-and-take boards dedicated to critiquing popular science.
At present we tin can add together artificial and fake scientific papers to this fountain of misinformation and defoliation. This decidedly unscientific procedure might produce "consensus science" but information technology does not produce understanding. Scientific discipline should be a rigorous procedure, dependent on the validity and quality of published literature. Also few accept read and critically thought most the patchwork of models, conjectures and hypotheses that too often are accepted as "understanding." Science has always been a social construct, but more and more it seems to take become a mutually supporting social network, conducted without agreement or informed by wide reading and critical thought.
Even though these manufactures are not specifically oriented toward my own field, I found them to be relevant and timely. Maybe if more people are fabricated aware of the deterioration of the process of scientific inquiry, we tin can begin to reinstate the techniques that take served us so well in the past. Journals need to stop accepting and publishing worthless contributions, and the community needs to finish writing them. The current literature should be read carefully and thoroughly. Noesis obtained from Internet searches must be treated with skepticism—whether incomplete or completely false, the results volition be the same. You lot cannot add to the discussion if y'all don't sympathise the conversation.
Source: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/daily-planet/science-publishing-some-skepticism-required-180954871/