You must log in or register to comment.

StabledGenius t1_it86yxa wrote

Some shit just recently happened with Alzheimer's research where the researchers were fudging pictures and results to get what the outcome wanted, and not what was actually true. Fucking capitalism, what're ya gonna do.


villevalla t1_itcazqh wrote

Researchers under communism or socialism aren't biased and aren't pressured to produce results? Okay.


thehedgepart2 t1_it9cbim wrote

Sure, have fun with your Lysenkoism


RTK4740 t1_iu01mnj wrote


TIL about Lysenkoism. Thanks for the new word/concept.


yawaworhtatodt t1_itbe7li wrote

There's a series of (pretty long) youtube videos that go into a lot of detail about the whole affair: part 1, part 2, part 3


Ramady t1_itco4uf wrote

This guy is the Jon Bois of science YouTube. Absolutely great content. I just got done with his latest video a few minutes ago - it’s about another scientific fraud.


alelabarca t1_itlu6e2 wrote

He totally is ripping Jon Bois’ style and it’s fantastic. I love watching someone who clearly is so incredibly inspired by one other person that it just drips with reference. In his latest video he even mentions scorigami lol


bayesian13 t1_itjg3b9 wrote

"The Schön affair has besmirched the peer review process in physics as never before. Why didn't the peer review system catch the discrepancies in his work? A referee in a new field doesn't want to "be the bad guy on the block," says Dutch physicist Teun Klapwijk, so he generally gives the author the benefit of the doubt. But physicists did become irritated after a while, says Klapwijk, "that Schön's flurry of papers continued without increased detail, and with the same sloppiness and inconsistencies."

Some critics hold the journals responsible. The editors of Science and Nature have stoutly defended their review process in interviews with the London Times Higher Education Supplement. Karl Ziemelis, one of Nature's physical science editors, complained of scapegoating, while Donald Kennedy, who edits Science, asserted that "There is little journals can do about detecting scientific misconduct."


looks like peer review for experimental physics is a joke