tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7082878015421475244.post6231986591780355688..comments2024-01-19T13:58:02.291-08:00Comments on LawsDystopiaBlog: Science is 'Other-Correcting'Professor Keith R Lawshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11760248140027990471noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7082878015421475244.post-18890408883015986532016-01-19T15:47:22.457-08:002016-01-19T15:47:22.457-08:00It is an old model of how scholarship works, which...It is an old model of how scholarship works, which is that each scholar builds a block and sets it down, and others add blocks to it until you have an edifice - vs. what you describe, a model of knowledge as a river, a process. Also the model of knowledge as being impacted by perspective (not controlled by, just impacted by) so that it's valuable to have others look at what you've been doing. <br /><br />In the first model, criticism is combative, because either my block is the one that belongs there, or yours is. If you win, I lose. You can BUILD on my block - you can complement me and say you're adding to what I've done - but you can't CONTEST that my block belongs there. Worse, the researcher may feel it necessary to fight all critics to keep control over their block of knowledge. <br /><br />In the second and third models (knowledge as a flow; knowledge as impacted by perspective), there's room to learn from each other, to change as we go along, without being "defeated." <br /><br />As in the current Lancet/PACE controversy, when you try to barricade your block of knowledge from all criticism, you only make matters worse. (Something that Nixon learned the hard way.)Mary Schweitzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11583106682242141031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7082878015421475244.post-52088380394514286232016-01-17T05:13:44.266-08:002016-01-17T05:13:44.266-08:00Sadly, this is pretty much the norm - a whistle st...Sadly, this is pretty much the norm - a whistle stop tour of Pubpeer uncovers large numbers of queries that remain unanswered. While you are right that publication is the start of a process, journals, authors, institutions and evaluation systems (from job interview to university 'performance') consider publication to the the final step.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7082878015421475244.post-10216391918036010732016-01-16T16:42:15.742-08:002016-01-16T16:42:15.742-08:00Fascinating and shocking story, Keith. And a nice ...Fascinating and shocking story, Keith. And a nice illustration of how the failure to respond appropriately to a problem can end up being more damaging for all concerned than the original problem itself.<br /><br />I notice the two primary authors are MDs,not PhDs, and it also appears from their letters that they rely on others to do their statistics for them, without fully understanding the results (even simple concepts like CIs). I wonder if this is part of the problem too? Perhaps non research professionals wishing to publish need to ensure they are appropriately trained in research basics first. Carolyn Wilshirenoreply@blogger.com