(www.nature.com)

257 points rntn | 1 comments | 25 Apr 25 16:14 UTC | HN request time: 0.204s | source

Show context

noisy_boy ◴[26 Apr 25 11:54 UTC] No.43802797[source]▶

Question to those in academia: with the plethora of false/fraudulent studies, can that be considered low-hanging fruit for phd students? e.g. pick studies published by universities with high debunking percentage and prove them wrong as part of the phd thesis? Instead of trying to discover "new" stuff which could be more work?

replies(4): >>43802849 #>>43803416 #>>43803461 #>>43804095 #

1. solresol ◴[26 Apr 25 13:24 UTC] No.43803416[source]▶

>>43802797 #

At the time when they need to be making connections and needing patronage you want PhD students to be showing up integrity and honesty problems and asking awkward questions about the powerful people in the community?

Of course that's what should be happening, but the incentives aren't pushing in the right direction for it currently.

↑

Reproducibility project fails to validate dozens of biomedical studies