Post

IT's no secret that academic journals don't choose what you publish based on how good the science was but on if it would appeal to their audience.

Though you were gonna go with « fortunately we failed to replicate the findings of the replication crisis paper therefore we solved it »

W

There really is an xkcd for everything.

Everyone in anonymous peer reviews which are not. And the need for money to put publications on the table. Sad to see the dearth of all things sciency

Thanks, I hate it.

An indictment of corporate media, perhaps?

@ifbookspod.bsky.social hey weren't you just talking about this?

This is the plot for a Philip K. Dick novel.

cc @ifbookspod.bsky.social

Could you not fit any more words?

I laughed. The barbarian I was drinking with laughed. The table laughed. The barbarian smashed the table, then charged me five gold for saving me from a mimic.

Well that’s just a ridiculous name for a journal

For a long time there was the Journal of Irreproducible Results

Managed to misread this as "Republican Crisis Solved." Damn.

Thank you for the smile :)

📌

The joke is that it wasn’t solved, but the study showing the problem was itself replicated.

>>> So if 99 studies on a topic don't find anything and 1 does find something, why is it that 1 study gets published? It is an argument that we need to take into account all the studies that DON'T confirm researchers' hypotheses. I am lucky enough to have my name on a paper that found nothing!

I think we've stumbled upon a replication paradox. 🤔

Ha!

Danke dafür! Werd ich gleich mal mit einbauen 😊

lol this was my take

@i4replication.bsky.social

not only would this rock but it sounds productive, since it opens up research to methodology adjustments that might cause issue - forget peer reviewed, this would make research community driven