Read on Twitter
I think this is an important article. Please read it all. Many aspects are of interest. Thread. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/05/does-ocean-acidification-alter-fish-behavior-fraud-allegations-create-sea-doubt
A huge debt is owed to the scientists and whistleblowers risked (and maybe sacrificed) their careers in carrying out these dogged replications and investigations, including @FredrikJutfelt and @Timothy_D_Clark
I'm impressed with the transparency of @ScienceMagazine in questioning in honest terms some of the glittering careers they helped create. @martinenserink has done a terrific job.
The litany of lame excuses, self-serving deflections, ad hominems and frankly pathetic institutional investigations is stomach-turning.
There is still a long way to go. Consider the relative situations of protagonists. Has the good science been correctly rewarded? The answer is NO.
On a positive note, it's great to see that the "irregulars" who have earned their spurs the hard way have suddenly become the go-to experts. E.g. @sTeamTraen
Further thoughts.
Mandatory publication of full source data and analysis code is essential in assuring quality and integrity of research. (I may have mentioned this before.) https://referee3.org/2019/12/25/data-sharing-should-be-mandatory-public-and-immediate/
Mandatory publication of full source data and analysis code is essential in assuring quality and integrity of research. (I may have mentioned this before.) https://referee3.org/2019/12/25/data-sharing-should-be-mandatory-public-and-immediate/
In his comments, @sTeamTraen goes where most editors fear to tread: are the purported data even remotely compatible with a plausible data acquisition and analysis pipeline? Authors should be obliged to make this specific.
A recurring example on PubPeer is journals accepting admissions of "errors" yet displaying a studied lack of curiosity in how any valid pipeline could mix up multiple images and create within-image duplications, etc.
Finally, for now, I keep coming back to the directness of the reporting (is @martinenserink Dutch?)
Given the high stakes, it is almost a foregone conclusion that somebody will reach for their lawyer. Going public in this way requires bravery. We should recognise that.
Given the high stakes, it is almost a foregone conclusion that somebody will reach for their lawyer. Going public in this way requires bravery. We should recognise that.
This is the problem right here:
"Munday noted that 85 papers, with more than 180 co-authors from more than 90 institutions, have by now reported effects from elevated CO2"
And of course many will have been in glamour journals. Unshakeable support?
"Munday noted that 85 papers, with more than 180 co-authors from more than 90 institutions, have by now reported effects from elevated CO2"
And of course many will have been in glamour journals. Unshakeable support?
Yet gigantic houses of cards did come crashing down in the psychology replications. Or the stripy nanoparticles saga. Etc.
Bold ideas gain influence and inertia far exceeding their supporting data.
Bold ideas gain influence and inertia far exceeding their supporting data.
