Sparks of Hope for a More Open Approach to Scientific Research and Publishing | Biomedical Computation Review

peter.suber's bookmarks 2020-06-10


"These are not the types of errors that concern me. What worries me are the types of errors that are reported in the “Error!” article in this issue of Biomedical Computation Review and that are responsible for some recent retractions—the flawed data analysis or worse, the falsely manipulated data; incorrect assumptions that lead to wrong conclusions. How did these studies get through our peer-review process?  And why has it taken so long to correct some of these mistakes?


The outlook might appear bleak, especially according to the recent popular press—the New York Times ran the article “It’s Science, but Not Necessarily Right” in June of this year, and the Wall Street Journal followed that up in August with the article “Mistakes in Scientific Studies Surge.” There is clearly room—lots of room—for improvement. But I also see sparks of hope as the scientific research and publication process tries to correct itself...."



06/10/2020, 05:34

From feeds:

Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) » peter.suber's bookmarks


oa.predictions oa.open_peer_review oa.reproducibility oa.quality oa.peer_review

Date tagged:

06/10/2020, 09:34

Date published:

08/31/2011, 05:34