It’s not fraud, no it’s worse than that! Total system collapse.
“The authors should have done it themselves before publication, and all you have to do is read the methods section in the paper and follow the instructions.
Sadly nothing, it seems, could be further from the truth. …
Now professor of biological psychology at Bristol University, he almost gave up on a career in science when, as a PhD student, he failed to reproduce a textbook study on anxiety.
“I had a crisis of confidence. I thought maybe it’s me, maybe I didn’t run my study well, maybe I’m not cut out to be a scientist.”
The problem, it turned out, was not with Marcus Munafo’s science, but with the way the scientific literature had been “tidied up” to present a much clearer, more robust outcome.
“What we see in the published literature is a highly curated version of what’s actually happened,” he says…
“It’s about a culture that promotes impact over substance, flashy findings over the dull, confirmatory work that most of science is about.”
She says it’s about the funding bodies that want to secure the biggest bang for their bucks, the peer review journals that vie to publish the most exciting breakthroughs, the institutes and universities that measure success in grants won and papers published and the ambition of the researchers themselves.
“Everyone has to take a share of the blame,” she argues. “The way the system is set up encourages less than optimal outcomes.”
The problem is even worse in climate science since it can not be replicated in a laboratory. Climate projections are by nature conceptual models. Even worse climate scientists do not release temperature source data, computer source code or a complete methodology of their process. It’s totally opaque. Their motto is ‘Trust me I’m a Climate Scientist’.