Hypotheses that flatter our own preconceptions and biases are incredibly seductive, and the temptation to accept them at face value can be nearly irresistible. But in a world that seems to be drifting away from analytical rigor and fact-based decision-making, the ability to resist that temptation is more essential than ever.
“Sound methodology” suggests an ideal match to a scientific question that never quite exists. So why do some publishers use it?
For some time I have been working on a basic model of scientific progress (or, since “progress” is a value-loaded term, a model of how science progresses). It has implications for certain issues related to scientific publication, so I thought […]
Science begins from a simple premise, then gets really complicated. It’s good to return to the basics, courtesy of this brief primer from the legendary Richard Feynman.
As we continue to measure the number of papers, citations, and the combination, perhaps we should be measuring a much lower number — the number of studies that can be replicated after publication.
All primary data should be made openly available, a UK government report recommends.
The truth isn’t disintegrating, but perhaps weaker or ad hoc theoretical frameworks are dissolving more quickly these days.
Stating that open access journals publish papers with “sound methodologies” promotes an unrealistic view of the scientific process and a corrupted image of the editorial and peer-review process.