There should be more value placed in publishing things that didn’t work as hypothesized. That way scientists in the future can know if a particular approach just doesn’t work.
Something like this, but completely normalized in the scientific world, where it’s ok to publish attempts, whether they succeed or not.
yea unfortunately publishing science (in certain levels) unfortunately now involves %50 razmatazz, %30 having some well established coauthor and %20 over selling. It has turned into a weird ecosystem that feeds on resource (jobs) scarcity in academia and makes insane profits for publishers.
Not surprised it attracted all kinds of vultures that feed on the scraps (predatory publishers). It is really smelling decay and puss from a mile away.
I had a null result for my MSc thesis. My supervisor lost interest immediately, and my funding went away. No interest in publishing a failure on his side, because the premise was flawed and he provided the premise. I dropped out and went to industry rather than be student poor with no funding.
I think we can agree “Good reseach” is in the how-its-done. I wish journals would chose/require/verify the how-its-done (time frame, resources, hypothesis, method etc) but after that be contractually required publish whatever conclusion is discovered by the team/project they picked and verified.
There should be more value placed in publishing things that didn’t work as hypothesized. That way scientists in the future can know if a particular approach just doesn’t work.
Something like this, but completely normalized in the scientific world, where it’s ok to publish attempts, whether they succeed or not.
yea unfortunately publishing science (in certain levels) unfortunately now involves %50 razmatazz, %30 having some well established coauthor and %20 over selling. It has turned into a weird ecosystem that feeds on resource (jobs) scarcity in academia and makes insane profits for publishers.
Not surprised it attracted all kinds of vultures that feed on the scraps (predatory publishers). It is really smelling decay and puss from a mile away.
My PhD is a proof my hypothesis is wrong. It was a depressing time 😅
I had a null result for my MSc thesis. My supervisor lost interest immediately, and my funding went away. No interest in publishing a failure on his side, because the premise was flawed and he provided the premise. I dropped out and went to industry rather than be student poor with no funding.
I think we can agree “Good reseach” is in the how-its-done. I wish journals would chose/require/verify the how-its-done (time frame, resources, hypothesis, method etc) but after that be contractually required publish whatever conclusion is discovered by the team/project they picked and verified.