Post #2246351

2026-02-05 20:33 UTC

@melisgl@mastodon.social True though the reason we write papers is presumably to contribute to the scientific record such that our science can be understood, potentially reproduced and built upon. That can't happen with the inconsistently incomplete info available in papers. You may argue that science does build on past discoveries but it does so by reading between the lines and educated guessing, which produces exorbitant amounts of research waste, e.g. the file-drawer problem. But returning to users >>

Replies (2)

@aeryn_thrace@mastodon.social 2026-02-05 20:37

@melisgl@mastodon.social If say a policy maker is going to use some piece of scientific information, it should be well documented enough so that a science advisor can evaluate the reliability of that science. Without accurate and complete documentation, that assessment cannot happen, thus creating a situation where the policy maker may support actions that are not scientifically sound, with dire social repercussions. No matter who is using the science, sound foundational documentation is essential.

Open ##2246352
@melisgl@mastodon.social 2026-02-06 07:58

@aeryn_thrace@mastodon.social When I argue for more reproducibility, meaningful review or more quality control in general, I get this pushback: "The individual paper is not a complete product. The overall knowledge of the field is. Science is a noisy process that time smooths. If you want quality and filtering, you have to wait." I think relying on time to such extent is inefficient, but it's hard to know how much quality control leads to the most efficient science. You seem to be arguing that we need more.

Open ##2246353