The Economist has an interesting article about the nature of scientific publications—namely that research is wrong. The author points out that overstating your research will increase the chances of it getting noticed and getting published. Scientific research has become big business: publish or perish! Two major points that I find to be true (unfortunately):
- Negative results are not publishable.
- Big, bold claims are more likely to get published than incremental updates.
The Internet has made everyone a publisher so many traditional institutions need to be reformed. Research is not immune. The article suggests that, rather than trusting journals, all quality above some threshold be published.
Good points. Interesting solutions. Any dissenters out there?