Mentions
Extended reach
Total likes
Video views
AI synopsis
This group of discussions collectively emphasizes the troubling effects of the publish or perish culture, with examples like modeling studies and calls for systemic change, where words such as 'epidemic,' 'crisis,' and 'serious problem' reflect concern and a desire for reform. The tone and context highlight a shared recognition that these issues threaten the integrity and progress of scientific research.
The majority of discussions acknowledge the issues highlighted in the publication, emphasizing the negative impact of publish or perish culture on scientific trustworthiness.
Posts demonstrate high interest by discussing modeling approaches, the systemic pressures, and the consequences for scientific integrity, indicating strong engagement with the topic.
Many responses include references to modeling, proposed reforms, and examples of the problem's scope, showing deep engagement and critical thinking.
The discussions reflect a recognition that the publication addresses a significant systemic issue affecting reproducibility, trust, and quality in science, suggesting a high perceived impact.
..for context, ~75% of preclinical research is non-reproducible. Even in cancer research, one investigation found only 11% of landmark studies could be replicated. Lots of reasons for this ("bioscience is hard" is a major one) but publication pressure huge https://t.co/tn7OYL1SVs
@METRICStanford JI: 96% of biomedical literature claims significant results. But negative papers are equally important. And sloppy / fraudulent research will pay off. We showed that using modeling. #Inserm277 https://t.co/rvcDGIO1FL
We would be much better off publishing fewer articles of higher quality. Think @david_colquhoun once suggested a paper limit per year, not a bad concept. And way back in 2018, we modelled why perverse incentives in Medical science spiral badly https://t.co/tn7OYL1SVs
@NoahHaber @TamarHaspel @deirdre_tobias Yup. You have a selection pressure for junk in all branches of science. Don't forget most cancer research isn't replicable either, which is a damning indictment of the system as it stands.... https://t.co/tn7OYL1SVs
@Oliver_S_Curry Mostly modeling : https://t.co/fR2psSnroa https://t.co/Ugid1VqYuP Some interventions that encourage publish or perish (that aimed to incentivize # of pubs directly) https://t.co/Bm9BfcvFh2
@ucdavis @ralphhexter At @ucdavis Ioannidis discussing models and approaches to testing reward systems in science https://t.co/ZoZa3rZ4Av https://t.co/GxldGNzUQs
This video discusses how the 'publish or perish' culture affects the reliability of scientific research, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, highlighting issues with fraudulent and irreproducible studies and the…
Impact is often overvalued in science, with citations and prominence overshadowing quality. This video explores why nonreplicable studies are cited more than replicable ones and discusses the influence of journal…
This is a highly inconvenient truth https://t.co/WSBRk7cRrQ
@METRICStanford JI: 96% of biomedical literature claims significant results. But negative papers are equally important. And sloppy / fraudulent research will pay off. We showed that using modeling. #Inserm277 https://t.co/rvcDGIO1FL
RT @Keremoktar: @Oliver_S_Curry Mostly modeling : https://t.co/fR2psSnroa https://t.co/Ugid1VqYuP Some interventions that encourage publi…
@Oliver_S_Curry Mostly modeling : https://t.co/fR2psSnroa https://t.co/Ugid1VqYuP Some interventions that encourage publish or perish (that aimed to incentivize # of pubs directly) https://t.co/Bm9BfcvFh2
RT @drg1985: We would be much better off publishing fewer articles of higher quality. Think @david_colquhoun once suggested a paper limit p…
RT @drg1985: We would be much better off publishing fewer articles of higher quality. Think @david_colquhoun once suggested a paper limit p…
RT @drg1985: We would be much better off publishing fewer articles of higher quality. Think @david_colquhoun once suggested a paper limit p…
We would be much better off publishing fewer articles of higher quality. Think @david_colquhoun once suggested a paper limit per year, not a bad concept. And way back in 2018, we modelled why perverse incentives in Medical science spiral badly https://t.co/tn7OYL1SVs
@andrewrens_ria @jasoncrawford Keywords to look for are scientometrics and “publish or perish”. https://t.co/1NvgaZ0DnS https://t.co/ANu8v1ejBP https://t.co/9QjVFydr1y https://t.co/z0tEwMqPVV https://t.co/5FfGH5kIsc
@vk_wilde @PWGTennant @susan_bewley @birthsmalltalk @adweeks @OBSevidence @inferencelab @jimgthornton @SPilleron There was a grt article by @drg1985 & @cbauch1 et al in 2018 "Modelling science trustworthiness under publish or perish pressure" https://t.co/JvzPrnBCcl https://t.co/OMf9d2Chel
@andrewccblake @MayorMattie @TCU @TexasWesleyan @TCCollege @utarlington @tamusystem @JCHartzell @UTAustin @GoldmanCraig @UTexasMBA Not that they always have a choice, though; "publish or perish" is a huge problem in academia. Sometimes the pressure to publish research is so high that a few turned to dishonest research: https://t.co/xHpJ2SNyRS I heard all about the "replication crisis" as a psych major.
@JohannaSzabo1 @carlsmythe @GiveABJGoToJail @EveJackson2011 @mcfunny @0800_KSMY_ASS @nicolas_gaboury @NTanzerin @ptcjoneses @redheadlass1402 @NathanaelYoung @dann58638436 @SerTophamHatt @thisisnothappen @Kitty_Grayling @troydee @TakethatCt @Springbok1066 @hansel21_ @TBD77 @SSZ1967 @hoothathuh @Crazycdn2 @CachePast @Adrienn_me @Joe09396262 @FatalFibers @badhatter353 @ShaneAKAProp @nononsenseat @Orwell2023 @All_Knowing_Bio @JiminyC24 @rw_christian @ryanbeed @LaymansScience @Pkdocker9 @AlBowers1 @cbeckj @Golfergirl2018 @CaryDavid722 @GlenMacafee @BerryTartlet @DaleDarcy4 @VUsuxballs @Sc_ott @real_seeking @Mattyboysmit1 @Amber84280581 @mhunt081266 Publish or Perish https://t.co/94KTc8pDek
@drg1985 I enjoyed reading your paper, besides the obvious conclusions based on simple model (and overly complicated math) why wasn’t “conflict of interest” addressed in the paper? Wouldn’t “bribes” (funded research) have the highest impact on #fraud? https://t.co/kNIV1YlmsA
@julie_conder @mirandat00 #PSYC4180E https://t.co/G6BcY6kBa9
#PSYC4180 #4180D #criticalthinking #trustnoone #lookatsources #scicomm #AcademicTwitter @julie_conder @chantelle0090 https://t.co/4MNr03Bn0Y
@NoahHaber @TamarHaspel @deirdre_tobias Yup. You have a selection pressure for junk in all branches of science. Don't forget most cancer research isn't replicable either, which is a damning indictment of the system as it stands.... https://t.co/tn7OYL1SVs
RT @amcasari: @juliaferraioli @tobie Yes! I do! I'm actually having a harder time finding pre-pandemic papers. This might be a good starti…
@juliaferraioli @tobie Yes! I do! I'm actually having a harder time finding pre-pandemic papers. This might be a good starting point: https://t.co/AvhKk7d5k6 When then leads to papers which cite it: https://t.co/VxmNxkFyjV
@ScaltritiLab @Aeon1972 https://t.co/hmtcpNGEQ1 è sempre un buon punto di partenza.
Für die Schwurbler, Querdenker, Gut-Bürger und BILD-Leser die KEINE Ahnung haben wie Wissenschaft abläuft, unter welchem Druck wir stehen oder Warum Wissenschaft nicht immer eine schwarz oder weiß Antwort geben kann! https://t.co/QlQsAM3UOe
Falsche Corona-Studie! Prof. Dr. Brockmann vom RKI weiß, warum das kein ... https://t.co/UP84kDqm04 via @YouTube
Falsche Corona-Studie! Prof. Dr. Brockmann vom RKI weiß, warum das kein ... https://t.co/MKyC8xDCya via @YouTube
Falsche Corona-Studie! Prof. Dr. Brockmann vom RKI weiß, warum das kein ... https://t.co/dEz89O7l6W via @YouTube
Studien, was sie sind, wie sie entstehen, welche Probleme dabei auftreten. Ein paar Hintergründe von Breaking Lab https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0TKjozUByc
Mega interessant. Das (generelle) Problem wissenschaftlicher Studien und auf was man achten sollte https://t.co/3k69siNHhB
@NoahHaber Definitely useful. Can chat next week. You probably saw this before, have more fleshed out ideas now... https://t.co/tn7OYL1SVs
Modeling Science Trustworthiness Under Publish Or Perish Pressure published as: https://t.co/epGiLUsbXt @royalsociety #biorxiv
RT @drg1985: ..for context, ~75% of preclinical research is non-reproducible. Even in cancer research, one investigation found only 11% of…
..for context, ~75% of preclinical research is non-reproducible. Even in cancer research, one investigation found only 11% of landmark studies could be replicated. Lots of reasons for this ("bioscience is hard" is a major one) but publication pressure huge https://t.co/tn7OYL1SVs
@Bacardisour @TrumpFallacy @InspiringPhilos @doofgeek4011 Here’s another one that raises a whole lot of doubt on your theory of the reliability of multiple untrustworthy rational faculties Human nature... https://t.co/RscOUW5YNg
@dkubed3 As a closing statement from me, he was part of the study that specifically referenced the MMR myth as being a reason why some people don't 'trust' science. https://t.co/oMBtZm7jbi https://t.co/T1AtxY7mep
RT @ARCGrapheneHub: Congratulations to @PumeraGroup on good work and a great point here. But apart from amazing #graphene this is a part o…
Congratulations to @PumeraGroup on good work and a great point here. But apart from amazing #graphene this is a part of bigger problem. "Publish or perish" scientific culture is now epidemic in academic world needs global therapy. https://t.co/ReKcgFHXFu https://t.co/WC6s1WVWeK https://t.co/L0p5A2tade
@drmattmcfarlane @HenningWillers @theNCI @RRS_RadRes @ASTRO_org @kaelin_lab @JSheltzer Dr. M thanks for the tweets. Since we are opening Pandora's box let's go all the way: https://t.co/B9XndwkEKv ; https://t.co/Q4nbmM57vy; - On the Plague of Publish or Perish. https://t.co/qHr71n9qYh - On wrong incentives. I feel for talented scientists forced into this system
Publish or perish problem: funder pressure "...0.3% admitted to falsification of data, 6% to a failure to present conflicting evidence and a worrying 15.5% to changing of study design, methodology or results in response to funder pressure". #Publisher https://t.co/ZPO6PR926q
Please consider reading either or both of the items below: Publish or Perish—and What it Means for Undergrads (https://t.co/Zb1VyaBvbx) Modelling Science Trustworthiness under Publish or Perish Pressure (https://t.co/xW5RmAGx5w)
Modelling science trustworthiness under publish or perish pressure https://t.co/A7ITJGPKZ3
RT @phylogenomics: @ucdavis @ralphhexter At @ucdavis Ioannidis discussing models and approaches to testing reward systems in science https:…
@ucdavis @ralphhexter At @ucdavis Ioannidis discussing models and approaches to testing reward systems in science https://t.co/ZoZa3rZ4Av https://t.co/GxldGNzUQs
great article published last year by @drg1985, "Modelling science trustworthiness under publish or perish pressure" Discusses the top-tier journals obsession with positive findings. This so-called 'file-drawer' problem discourages…https://t.co/xOpCVLPFk4 https://t.co/cyd0jK0x5E
DOI: 10.1098/rsos.171511 27. S. Mallapaty. China bans cash rewards for publishing papers, 2020. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-020-00574-8 28. M. Lambovska; D ...
5(1), 171511. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.171511. Grudniewicz, A., Moher, D., Cobey, K. D., Bryson, G. L., Cukier, S., Allen, K., Ardern, C ...
Royal Society Open Science, 5(1), Article 171511. cran.r-project.org/package=shiny https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.171511. Chaudhuri, A. (2016) ...
org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsos.210898 Artículo en español: https://www.researchgate. ... 171511?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=byline ...
org/doi/10.1098/rsos.171511. royalsocietypublishing.org. Modelling science trustworthiness under publish. 4 yrs · Andy Farley. Watching YouTube ...
DG
EB
KO
JE
S
TY
Y
DB
DB
JB
AP
SC
SA
BA
RG
JC
TL
MC
B
BP
DB
RJ
D
NL
A
P
AK
SS
KG
PB
DL