Twitter | Pretraživanje | |
Matthew Herron
Some scientists posted a 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.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se" More
Nicholas Bauer, PhD 👨‍🔬🔬 1. velj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @xprinceps @NeuroSmiley
Yes. Except how far did the misinformation spread before that happened? How many still believe it is true?
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Matthew Herron 2. velj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @BioTurboNick @NeuroSmiley
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.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Anna M. G. Novák Vanclová 3. velj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @xprinceps
Preprint servers are double-edged swords, almost everything is. But journalists should really do their job responsibly and go after quality information, not clicks.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Matthew Herron 3. velj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @Euglenaria
I couldn't agree more. If you don't have the subject matter expertise to evaluate a paper, talk to someone who does.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Gisli Jenkins 1. velj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @xprinceps @cshperspectives
I am much more careful with submitted drafts now they go on a Preprint server first.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Dr Ba(p)t(iste) Gault 🦇🔬⚛️ 1. velj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @xprinceps @seis_matters
I’m confused where is the step where someone made a few million dollars in that process? There MUST be something wrong... 🤔🧐🤔
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Jeffrey Li 2. velj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @xprinceps
Wonder why arxiv doesn't provide the same discussion functionality for each paper
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"