The real problem is that “actual scientific journal” 's quality control is shit too.
There are no actually real standards on how to write a paper, or which citation style to use. Sources aren’t hyperlinked, if the source isn’t machine readable or just a book, that’s just an “eh, oopsie, go read it then”. There are no automatic setups that check for AI use, corruption and “cooperation” between companies or other “public benefit organizations”, study conducting bodies and potentially favorable outcomes.
If you look at any research institute or university, they will brag front and center about who much tradition they have, but they’re real quiet about how many studies they’re publishing and how many of them get reproduced. And don’t get me started on the whole publishing industry that somehow everyone has to pay into for everything and the people and institutions that actually do the work don’t see a dollar of the profits that those companies rake in.
That doesn’t mean that there aren’t relatively even worse sources. That is definitely the case. But it’s very much not a “just believe the scientists” either.
I mean, it’s a very large dependency on which journals, how well cited they are etc…
I mean yes there’s absolutely problems, but it doesn’t make much sense when we are comparing to basically completely unsourced arguements from complete and total laymen. That’s basically in the category of calling out Obama did some unethical things as president… in a discussion about trump. Yes 100% agreed with the premise, but also have to say they aren’t even in the same league.
The real problem is that “actual scientific journal” 's quality control is shit too.
Good thing they referred to a meta-analysis, which is near the top of the hierarchy of evidence.
Most of the scientific research articles nowadays are hyperlinked.
They aren’t appeals to authority: the entire purpose of the article is to present their work, data, & findings (ie, evidence).
the entire purpose of the article is to present their work, data, & findings (ie, evidence).
I know, that that is the claim, that’s what I’m attacking. They’re garbage at doing this. There is no agreed upon standard of doing it. and because they are so utterly shit at it, all that is left is the appeal to authority, because “our methodology works”.
(And if I’m wrong, point me to the template and standard formatting that was agreed upon. Show me the standardized procedures that meta analysis studies have to pass to be considered “acceptable”.)
They’re garbage at doing this. There is no agreed upon standard of doing it. and because they are so utterly shit at it, all that is left is the appeal to authority, because “our methodology works”.
Not really: most research of any credibility openly shares its data either upfront or on request.
The argument isn’t “I did this right, trust me, bro”, it’s “here’s my methods & data supporting my analysis & conclusions: check for yourself or even redo it all”.
Reproducibility (verification of findings) & replicability (same findings with new data) is the standard: once that’s done (researchers can communicate to clear up methods or miscommunication), the issues to do that had been cleared up & don’t really matter anymore.
A meta-analysis takes in a body of independent studies that replicate findings & analyzes them together to reproduce results, so it addresses both standards.
I’m happy someone is pointing this out. There is so much trash out there that is just maximised for “citation count” because that’s how you get recognition in academia.
One more thing for folks who don’t know: peer reviewed doesn’t always mean someone actually verified shit, let alone read it all.
I’m not saying don’t believe scientists or that the whole research field is a hoax, I just am severely disappointed in the broader scientific community.
The real problem is that “actual scientific journal” 's quality control is shit too.
There are no actually real standards on how to write a paper, or which citation style to use. Sources aren’t hyperlinked, if the source isn’t machine readable or just a book, that’s just an “eh, oopsie, go read it then”. There are no automatic setups that check for AI use, corruption and “cooperation” between companies or other “public benefit organizations”, study conducting bodies and potentially favorable outcomes.
If you look at any research institute or university, they will brag front and center about who much tradition they have, but they’re real quiet about how many studies they’re publishing and how many of them get reproduced. And don’t get me started on the whole publishing industry that somehow everyone has to pay into for everything and the people and institutions that actually do the work don’t see a dollar of the profits that those companies rake in.
That doesn’t mean that there aren’t relatively even worse sources. That is definitely the case. But it’s very much not a “just believe the scientists” either.
Way too serious rant for a comic over.
I mean, it’s a very large dependency on which journals, how well cited they are etc…
I mean yes there’s absolutely problems, but it doesn’t make much sense when we are comparing to basically completely unsourced arguements from complete and total laymen. That’s basically in the category of calling out Obama did some unethical things as president… in a discussion about trump. Yes 100% agreed with the premise, but also have to say they aren’t even in the same league.
Good thing they referred to a meta-analysis, which is near the top of the hierarchy of evidence. Most of the scientific research articles nowadays are hyperlinked. They aren’t appeals to authority: the entire purpose of the article is to present their work, data, & findings (ie, evidence).
I know, that that is the claim, that’s what I’m attacking. They’re garbage at doing this. There is no agreed upon standard of doing it. and because they are so utterly shit at it, all that is left is the appeal to authority, because “our methodology works”.
(And if I’m wrong, point me to the template and standard formatting that was agreed upon. Show me the standardized procedures that meta analysis studies have to pass to be considered “acceptable”.)
Not really: most research of any credibility openly shares its data either upfront or on request. The argument isn’t “I did this right, trust me, bro”, it’s “here’s my methods & data supporting my analysis & conclusions: check for yourself or even redo it all”. Reproducibility (verification of findings) & replicability (same findings with new data) is the standard: once that’s done (researchers can communicate to clear up methods or miscommunication), the issues to do that had been cleared up & don’t really matter anymore.
A meta-analysis takes in a body of independent studies that replicate findings & analyzes them together to reproduce results, so it addresses both standards.
I’m happy someone is pointing this out. There is so much trash out there that is just maximised for “citation count” because that’s how you get recognition in academia.
One more thing for folks who don’t know: peer reviewed doesn’t always mean someone actually verified shit, let alone read it all.
I’m not saying don’t believe scientists or that the whole research field is a hoax, I just am severely disappointed in the broader scientific community.