Petr
10-08-2008, 11:51 AM
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081006202623.htm
Why Current Publication Practices May Distort Science
ScienceDaily (Oct. 7, 2008) — The current system of publishing medical and scientific research provides "a distorted view of the reality of scientific data that are generated in the laboratory and clinic," says a team of researchers in PLoS Medicine.
In their Essay, Neal Young (National Institutes of Health, USA), John Ioannidis (Tufts University School of Medicine, USA and University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Greece), and Omar Al-Ubaydli (George Mason University, USA) apply principles from the field of economics to present evidence consistent with a distortion.
There is an "extreme imbalance," they say, between the abundance of supply (the output of basic science laboratories and clinical investigations) and the increasingly limited venues for publication (journals with sufficiently high impact).
The result is that only a small proportion of all research results are eventually chosen for publication, and these results are unrepresentative of scientists' repeated samplings of the real world.
The authors argue that there is a moral imperative to reconsider how scientific data are judged and disseminated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Journal reference:
Young et al. Why Current Publication Practices May Distort Science. PLoS Medicine, 2008; 5 (10): e201 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050201
Adapted from materials provided by Public Library of Science, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
And then, creationist commentary to the above piece:
There is a strong likelihood that the Darwin-loving mainstream journals give inordinate publicity to evolutionary papers. If the journals printed a true sample of the actual laboratory research that goes on, the science-to-Darwin ratio (like the signal to noise ratio) would probably shoot way up. Science would sound much sweeter and clearer without the constant noise of evolutionary static.
This is the Darwin Party’s pump-and-dump scheme. They artificially inflate the value of evolutionary research, then dump it on the unsuspecting public who think they are getting unbiased science. This devalues science for everyone.
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200810.htm#20081007a
Why Current Publication Practices May Distort Science
ScienceDaily (Oct. 7, 2008) — The current system of publishing medical and scientific research provides "a distorted view of the reality of scientific data that are generated in the laboratory and clinic," says a team of researchers in PLoS Medicine.
In their Essay, Neal Young (National Institutes of Health, USA), John Ioannidis (Tufts University School of Medicine, USA and University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Greece), and Omar Al-Ubaydli (George Mason University, USA) apply principles from the field of economics to present evidence consistent with a distortion.
There is an "extreme imbalance," they say, between the abundance of supply (the output of basic science laboratories and clinical investigations) and the increasingly limited venues for publication (journals with sufficiently high impact).
The result is that only a small proportion of all research results are eventually chosen for publication, and these results are unrepresentative of scientists' repeated samplings of the real world.
The authors argue that there is a moral imperative to reconsider how scientific data are judged and disseminated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Journal reference:
Young et al. Why Current Publication Practices May Distort Science. PLoS Medicine, 2008; 5 (10): e201 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050201
Adapted from materials provided by Public Library of Science, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
And then, creationist commentary to the above piece:
There is a strong likelihood that the Darwin-loving mainstream journals give inordinate publicity to evolutionary papers. If the journals printed a true sample of the actual laboratory research that goes on, the science-to-Darwin ratio (like the signal to noise ratio) would probably shoot way up. Science would sound much sweeter and clearer without the constant noise of evolutionary static.
This is the Darwin Party’s pump-and-dump scheme. They artificially inflate the value of evolutionary research, then dump it on the unsuspecting public who think they are getting unbiased science. This devalues science for everyone.
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200810.htm#20081007a