|
@xprinceps | |||||
|
Some scientists posted a #preprint that was flashy ("uncanny", "astonishing"), apparently not very careful, and wrong. Within hours, half a dozen experts commented that it was wrong and showed why it was wrong. This IS how it's supposed to work.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Nicholas Bauer, PhD 👨🔬🔬
@BioTurboNick
|
1. velj |
|
Yes. Except how far did the misinformation spread before that happened? How many still believe it is true?
|
||
|
|
||
|
Matthew Herron
@xprinceps
|
2. velj |
|
Rather, the problem IMO is reporters who report on research that hasn't been peer reviewed, that they don't understand, and that they can't be bothered to run by a few experts in the field. The scientists also bear responsibility, of course.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Anna M. G. Novák Vanclová
@Euglenaria
|
3. velj |
|
Preprint servers are double-edged swords, almost everything is. But journalists should really do their job responsibly and go after quality information, not clicks.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Matthew Herron
@xprinceps
|
3. velj |
|
I couldn't agree more. If you don't have the subject matter expertise to evaluate a paper, talk to someone who does.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Gisli Jenkins
@IPFdoc
|
1. velj |
|
I am much more careful with submitted drafts now they go on a Preprint server first.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Dr Ba(p)t(iste) Gault 🦇🔬⚛️
@bat__go
|
1. velj |
|
I’m confused where is the step where someone made a few million dollars in that process? There MUST be something wrong... 🤔🧐🤔
|
||
|
|
||
|
Jeffrey Li
@askerlee
|
2. velj |
|
Wonder why arxiv doesn't provide the same discussion functionality for each paper
|
||
|
|
||