Comments by "blank" (@_blank-_) on "Pete Judo" channel.

  1. Maybe her own career is the actual experiment 😂
    6
  2. I think journals are also indirectly complicit. Don't they also benefit from these surprising studies? They also don't force these experiments to be replicated when they make money from free work (isn't that basically... slavery?)
    4
  3.  @Zero-qn8mk  Huh? Peer-review doesn't prevent the replication crisis or tampering. All the studies from Gino cited in this video were peer-reviewed and published. These three scientists who looked back at her work just used a lot more scrutiny. Reviewers do not actually repeat the experiment. They just read the paper and see if it can be improved in terms of writing and if there are glaringly obvious errors. Another issue is that the data sets/code used in the research are rarely made available during the peer-reviewing process so a paper with tampered data can go through without much scrutiny. Scientific research is truly messed up and makes no sense.
    4
  4. This makes me think about the study which was used to support austerity measures based on an Excel spreadsheet that had several errors... The data/code used for a study should be available from the start of the peer-reviewing process. Scientific research is broken.
    3
  5. I didn't see the word as negative
    2
  6. @@Matthew-ym8rb But do scientists really take the time to verify published articles? Especially if it's not from a big name and it isn't so obvious that it's been tampered with? Gino got away with it for so long, I'm having a hard time believing that this isn't widespread. If the first peer-review is basically useless, why have it at all? I honestly don't understand why researchers don't have a social media dedicated to them where they crowd source peer-reviewing and where they require the data sets and code used in the paper. The fact that results can't be replicated for most studies and that there's a pressure to regularly publish articles with significant results, it's hard to trust Scienceâ„¢.
    2
  7.  @freyc1  From Retraction Watch: "Michael Hadjiargyrou: Yes, the higher incidence of paper retractions as well as data from the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) that clearly shows an increase in reports of scientific misconduct."
    2
  8. Fraudsters should be forced to pay back their grants and banned from publishing ever again. Or prison sentences.
    1
  9. @@Matthew-ym8rb To be fair, I'm a total outsider but I just like science and it's heartbreaking to see how malpractice seems rampant. A lot of things in scientific research appear to be broken when they could be easily fixed. That ranges from journals making money off public research while the scientists behind the studies/peer-review don't get any of it, the replication crisis, the lack of legal and financial consequences for researchers caught cheating, the growing number of retractions, the pressure to publish a lot of articles, even if they are rubbish. Scientists should be incentivized to publish their non-significant results, deterred from cheating and they shouldn't be reduced to the number of articles they published. I hope AI can make detecting cheaters and peer-reviewing better.
    1