Thought-provoking paper on the credibility of research papers

Guidelines for Science: Evidence and Checklists Written in Adelaide. h/t Judy Curry.
From the abstract.

Problem: Most research papers published in the management and social sciences and applied economics fields violate established scientific principles. Consequently, perhaps fewer than one-in-one-hundred of the papers published in leading journals provide useful scientific knowledge. The problem addressed by this paper is, how can the practice of science be improved so as to increase the publication of useful papers?
Findings: Key causes of violations of the principles of science are: (a) government funding of advocacy research; (b) regulations limiting what research is permitted, how it must be done, and how it must be reported; (c) political suppression of scientists’ speech; (d) universities’ use of invalid criteria to evaluate research—such as grant money and counting unscientific publications and their citations—and (e) journals’ use of invalid criteria for deciding which papers to publish. We created a checklist of 25 evidence-based guidelines for scientists who wish to undertake useful scientific research, and a checklist of 7 guidelines for journal editors, funders, users, courts, and other stakeholders to evaluate whether a research paper provides useful scientific findings.

Bonus link. Laframboise on the same theme. Her full paper on the defects of peer reviewed literature.

This entry was posted in Rafe. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Thought-provoking paper on the credibility of research papers

  1. Herodotus

    Given that the Greens are infested with recycled communists and yet to be enlightened “socialism will work if done properly” types, and that so much of left politics (read Labor) the media and academe are in sync with that sort of thinking, it comes as no surprise that science has been co-opted and subjugated into a soviet model, serving the cause rather than speaking the truth.

  2. john constantine

    Follow the money, and not just the money but their ‘currency’.

    Support the progress of the crony narrative and it gets you past their gatekeepers that protect the resources of the left [taken from taxpayers] from being squandered on deniers.

  3. .

    Let’s take Einstein. Wrote his early famous papers in his spare time working as a civil servant.

    Alcubierre wrote a scientific basis to fan fiction as an extension of Einstein.

    Shawyer and Harold White have made most of their progress completely outside of “peer review”.

    It really isn’t that useful except as a filter for plagiarism and a sounding board.

    Having research heavily edited by a know it all that bitterly clings to their own theories and cannot accept properly tested empirical data is a waste of time.

  4. wozzup

    My number one gripe about so called climate science and the give away that it is not a science at all, is the fact that in real science you change the theory to fit the evidence. In climate science they change the evidence to fit the theory.

    As in their so called homogenization of the temperature data. Homogenization actually involves amending historical records to sanitize data on temperature so that the revised data fits with climate theory. This produces the famous “hockey stick” graph which purports to show a sudden recent increase in temperatures in line with climate science predictions. But, as anyone who has examined the practice knows, historical records like the medieval warming period have been “homogenized” out of the data as were other periods of heating or cooling . Apparently these do not fit the model so had to go.

    Changing evidence to fit theories is not science it is fetish.

Comments are closed.