August
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31
Who's Online Now
5 members (LeFusil, montenegrin, Bob Jurewicz, SKB, Mark II), 108 guests, and 6 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums10
Topics36,646
Posts518,846
Members14,194
Most Online462
Aug 5th, 2016
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 6 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 56
Likes: 15
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 56
Likes: 15
Originally Posted by Drew Hause
I can tell you Bluestem that at the UM-KC SOM starting in the 90s the rule was if you did not substantial contribute to the paper, your name didn't appear on it.
Are you saying that the authors of a study that is proved to be junk suffer no professional repercussions?
I am well aware of the term "substantial contributions" to a paper. Care to operationalize that term, however? Good luck. As Bruce notes, support staff, grad students, etc. have expectations that their names are included, regardless of whatever "substantial" means for that particular department and that particular university. Tenure and grant money depend on being published, which introduces its own form of scientific bias. If by "junk" you mean ultimately incorrect, well that depends. As you are aware, science is not linear. It is full of dead-ends and false starts. There are plenty of famous scientists who have been dead wrong on occasion and their reputation suffered little for it. If by "junk" you include falsifying data, then yes, we are in total agreement. (See Andrew Wakefield, his autism "research," and the multiple authors on the fraudulent article in The Lancet ). One of my experimental design classes in grad school included critiquing the methodology and statistical analysis of various studies. We would dismantle the studies and feel pretty superior until our professor would ultimately say in his Russian accent, "Yes, but it got published." One study is one study, no matter how many authors. Replication is vital. But few academic journals publish pure replication studies, and no one is getting tenure or multi-million dollar grants based on a CV full of replication studies. Such is science.

1 member likes this: LeFusil
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 56
Likes: 15
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 56
Likes: 15
Originally Posted by ClapperZapper
I am reminded of when my daughter co-authored a paper that went on to be published in Nature. (High impact Science rag for the unfamiliar)
She was savaged world wide because US spreadsheet software places comma’s differently that EU spreadsheet software.

Watching 15 years of 12 hr days go up in electronic smoke over commas and decimal software defaults really opened my eyes on how competitive the professional science world is.
I have a colleague who was one of the pioneers in functional MRI development and is widely published. He had a goal of being published in Science or Nature at some point in his career. He's resigned himself to the likelihood that it will never happen. Congratulations to your daughter; it is a huge achievement.

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,612
Likes: 54
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,612
Likes: 54
Yes I know.

It’s only when ignorant racist dumbasses that don’t know open their pie holes that I put both of my boots on.

My son in law discovered and published the mechanism that leads to stroke in COVID patients.
The mechanism for why a COVID patient is 1000 times more likely to have a stroke at the end of the disease cycle when their immune systems goes nuts.

He did it for salary. And because he can.

There are probably people here that are alive because of it. He had an idea, intellect, and he ground out the science to prove the mechanism.

For Foxie, He’s a Jap.

1 member likes this: BrentD
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,153
Likes: 36
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,153
Likes: 36
Originally Posted by Drew Hause
....In academics, anything published is immediately peer reviewed, and the peers establish their reputation by proving you are wrong.
Studies later shown to be in error, after additional work, can be forgiven.
Poor investigative techniques, or even worse, faking it, destroys the author's academic career.
The careers of 29 smart folks were on the line, and if someone was making stuff up, someone would have fessed up....
Of anyone Doc Drew, I'd think you would know we are in an era that publications such as Lancet and the Journal of the American Medical Association are putting out "peer reviewed" articles, concluding that healthcare should be allocated and denied based on race.

Of the twenty-nine whose careers are at risk, did any of them conclude as BrentD did, that lead poisoning of bald eagles is insignificant? Haven't we learned just last week that the CDC has only released a small percentage of their covid research, because it doesn't support political messaging? The answer is no to the twenty-nine, and there does not seem to be any backlash against them. Isn't that the truth of science in today's world?

1 member likes this: LeFusil
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,618
Likes: 44
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,618
Likes: 44
Originally Posted by craigd
Originally Posted by Drew Hause
....In academics, anything published is immediately peer reviewed, and the peers establish their reputation by proving you are wrong.
Studies later shown to be in error, after additional work, can be forgiven.
Poor investigative techniques, or even worse, faking it, destroys the author's academic career.
The careers of 29 smart folks were on the line, and if someone was making stuff up, someone would have fessed up....
Of anyone Doc Drew, I'd think you would know we are in an era that publications such as Lancet and the Journal of the American Medical Association are putting out "peer reviewed" articles, concluding that healthcare should be allocated and denied based on race.

Of the twenty-nine whose careers are at risk, did any of them conclude as BrentD did, that lead poisoning of bald eagles is insignificant? Haven't we learned just last week that the CDC has only released a small percentage of their covid research, because it doesn't support political messaging? The answer is no to the twenty-nine, and there does not seem to be any backlash against them. Isn't that the truth of science in today's world?


craigd, you are an idiot. You really have no idea what you are talking about.


_________
...never pay Dave "one more dime"
Page 6 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Link Copied to Clipboard

doublegunshop.com home | Welcome | Sponsors & Advertisers | DoubleGun Rack | Doublegun Book Rack

Order or request info | Other Useful Information

Updated every minute of everyday!


Copyright (c) 1993 - 2022 doublegunshop.com. All rights reserved. doublegunshop.com - Bloomfield, NY 14469. USA These materials are provided by doublegunshop.com as a service to its customers and may be used for informational purposes only. doublegunshop.com assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions in these materials. THESE MATERIALS ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANT-ABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR NON-INFRINGEMENT. doublegunshop.com further does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information, text, graphics, links or other items contained within these materials. doublegunshop.com shall not be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages, including without limitation, lost revenues or lost profits, which may result from the use of these materials. doublegunshop.com may make changes to these materials, or to the products described therein, at any time without notice. doublegunshop.com makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. This is a public un-moderated forum participate at your own risk.

Note: The posting of Copyrighted material on this forum is prohibited without prior written consent of the Copyright holder. For specifics on Copyright Law and restrictions refer to: http://www.copyright.gov/laws/ - doublegunshop.com will not monitor nor will they be held liable for copyright violations presented on the BBS which is an open and un-moderated public forum.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.0.33-0+deb9u11+hw1 Page Time: 0.065s Queries: 28 (0.041s) Memory: 0.8279 MB (Peak: 1.8992 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2022-08-14 22:00:03 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS