re: ‘Replication crisis’ spurs reforms in how science studies are done (nope!)
re: Research Fraud at Stanford Confirmed and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya Reveals Stanford University's Attempts To Derail COVID Studies
Real science is never settled, and anyone who has certainty on such things is not qualified to discuss it.
Tip of the iceberg.
It doesn’t even begin to look at the ways studies are fraudulent, particularly medical studies. But at least this approach will ferret-out the ferrets out there faking data.
The problem is not new; back in 2005 (18 years ago!): Ioannidis: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.
It all seems like just one natural outgrowth of a Cluster B society.
BTW, did you know that most meta analyses are far too often the de facto opinion of the authors eg they decide what to include and exclude? Meta analyses are not science.
2023-09-24. Emphasis added.
Stanford’s president and a high-profile physicist are among those taken down by a growing wave of volunteers who expose faulty or fraudulent research papers
An award-winning Harvard Business School professor and researcher spent years exploring the reasons people lie and cheat. A trio of behavioral scientists examining a handful of her academic papers concluded her own findings were drawn from falsified data.
It was a routine takedown for the three scientists—Joe Simmons, Leif Nelson and Uri Simonsohn—who have gained academic renown for debunking published studies built on faulty or fraudulent data. They use tips, number crunching and gut instincts to uncover deception. Over the past decade, they have come to their own finding: Numbers don’t lie but people do.
At least 5,500 faulty papers were retracted in 2022, compared with 119 in 2002, according to Retraction Watch, a website that keeps a tally. The jump largely reflects the investigative work of the Data Colada scientists and many other academic volunteers, said Dr. Ivan Oransky, the site’s co-founder. Their discoveries have led to embarrassing retractions, upended careers and retaliatory lawsuits.
...The data detectives hope their work will keep science honest, at a time when the public’s faith in science is ebbing. The pressure to publish papers—which can yield jobs, grants, speaking engagements and seats on corporate advisory boards—pushes researchers to chase unique and interesting findings, sometimes at the expense of truth, according to Simmons and others.
WIND: science in terms of studies have very very low credibility, and have for 20 years. Science the process takes a lifetime or three to get to something closer to the truth. And today, follow the money explains everything you need to know, whether it is the oxymoronic “climate science” (mostly religion), or COVID “follow the science” (mostly propaganda).