Hype-hypocrisy-falsification-fakery continuum

[DynamicDidactic]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Came across this (on Retraction watch):

Psychology accused of ‘collective self-deception’ over results

University of Texas at Austin scholar argues that the poor state of quantitative psychology makes replication impossible

www.timeshighereducation.com

and this:

Error - Cookies Turned Off

onlinelibrary.wiley.com

Thought they were interesting enough to post. Basically, the commonplace exaggeration (hype) in a lot of basic psychological science is the first step on the way to full out fake research.

And a prime 😉 example of hype in research.

What’s next for psychology’s embattled field of social priming

A promising field of research on social behaviour struggled after investigators couldn’t repeat key findings. Now researchers are trying to establish what’s worth saving.

www.nature.com

 

[Justanothergrad]

Came across this (on Retraction watch):

Psychology accused of ‘collective self-deception’ over results

University of Texas at Austin scholar argues that the poor state of quantitative psychology makes replication impossible

www.timeshighereducation.com

and this:

Error - Cookies Turned Off

onlinelibrary.wiley.com

Thought they were interesting enough to post. Basically, the commonplace exaggeration (hype) in a lot of basic psychological science is the first step on the way to full out fake research.

And a prime 😉 example of hype in research.

What’s next for psychology’s embattled field of social priming

A promising field of research on social behaviour struggled after investigators couldn’t repeat key findings. Now researchers are trying to establish what’s worth saving.

www.nature.com

Unreasonable and exaggeration in science? Lets look at the funding agencies to take some responsibility as well. All that report dependent money reminds me of criteria 1 and 4 of Slick for some reason.....

 

[WisNeuro]

Yeah, I don't think w can talk about the hype machine without talking about dwindling funding dollars and ever increasing competition for those dollars.

 

[PsyDr]

I say we limit the number of journals per profession. Then only accept actually useful findings. No more “the reaction time in the 3rd item of subtest of a Norwegian version of the WAIS-R was shown to be impaired in Somali speaking individuals with schizophrenia and factor v Leiden” articles that are just used to pump up the cv of some grad students or some idiot with a lab at the university of no one cares.

But that would destroy the entire academia industry, which shouldn’t be an industry at all.

 

[WisNeuro]

I say we limit the number of journals per profession. Then only accept actually useful findings. No more “the reaction time in the 3rd item of subtest of a Norwegian version of the WAIS-R was shown to be impaired in Somali speaking individuals with schizophrenia and factor v Leiden” articles that are just used to pump up the cv of some grad students or some idiot with a lab at the university of no one cares.

But that would destroy the entire academia industry, which shouldn’t be an industry at all.

Don't you take away p-hacking! Then how would incompetent grad students/faculty get pubs!

 

[clausewitz2]

I say we limit the number of journals per profession. Then only accept actually useful findings. No more “the reaction time in the 3rd item of subtest of a Norwegian version of the WAIS-R was shown to be impaired in Somali speaking individuals with schizophrenia and factor v Leiden” articles that are just used to pump up the cv of some grad students or some idiot with a lab at the university of no one cares.

But that would destroy the entire academia industry, which shouldn’t be an industry at all.

The danger then is that any field that does this is way more vulnerable to a particular clique with an agenda getting control of most channels of professional communication and weaponizing it against their rivals/anyone questioning their research program. Also it kind of amplifies the problem of faddishness and sensationalism - there is only one Nature and only one Science, and they only publish "important" things, but this has not led to more reliable studies.

While carrying its own disadvantages, I say go full ArXiv and open source it all, with raw data supplied. The stuff that people care about is going to get circulated and is also going to get shredded if more attention highlights flaws (academic Twitter is more than up to the task). Instead of "published" v. "not published" determining whether something counts as evidence (not a very reliable standard if we are interested in truth), you'd have to reason based on theory, experience, and broad knowledge of other work in the field.

This might make rhetorical and communication skills more dominant in determining prestige in academia but I'm not sure that's all bad. It would be difficult to square with things that need regulatory approval where you need a yes or no but then the current regime is nobody's ideal.

 

[Justanothergrad]

Don't you take away p-hacking! Then how would incompetent grad students/faculty get pubs!

How would anyone get tenure with the current publication expectations some places have?

 

[WisNeuro]

How would anyone get tenure with the current publication expectations some places have?

Shh, don't give up the secrets of the admin in these places.