Andrew Gelman and Andrew King at The Chronicle of Higher Education:
The publication process in social science is broken. Articles in prestigious journals use flawed data, employ questionable research practices, and reach illogical conclusions. Sometimes doubts over research become public, such as in the case of honesty scholar Francesca Gino, but most of the time research malpractice goes unacknowledged and uncorrected. Yet scholars know it is there, hiding below the surface, leading to frustration and cynicism. Research “has become a game of publication and not science,” as one professor wrote in response to a survey on research practices.
The current focus on the “game” of publishing encourages authors and outlets to search for surprising and interesting results rather than those that are scientifically justified. Journals have published outlandish studies (a 2007 paper claimed that attractive parents are 26 percent more likely to have girls, a 2011 study found evidence for extrasensory perception, etc.), as well as costly and even dangerous studies (a paper linking vaccines to autism in 1998, a 2022 meta-analysis of “nudges” drastically overestimating their effects, etc.). These papers gained wide publicity and influence, partly via the credibility provided by peer review. Fortunately, all became so well known that they were eventually rebutted or corrected. More insidious are those cases of flawed research that remain hidden from popular outlets and thus require correction by the journals themselves.
More here.
Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.