I highly suggest consuming the full piece here (13 min. read time)
“By and large, scientific research is published in journals in the form of papers – static documents that do not update with new data or new methods. Instead of sharing the data and the code that produces their results, most scientists simply publish a textual description of their research in online publications. These publications are usually hidden behind paywalls, making it harder for outsiders to verify their authenticity.” — Dattani & Bechhofer
“…a researcher who cites a study that itself derives its data or assumptions from prior research that has been disputed, corrected or retracted. The longer it takes to sift through the science, to identify which results are accurate, the longer it takes to gather an understanding of scientific knowledge.” — Dattani & Bechhofer
“The process of error correction – from scientists publishing a paper, to readers spotting errors, to having the paper corrected or retracted – can take years, assuming those errors are spotted at all.” — Dattani & Bechhofer
“The lack of transparency lends itself to misconduct – reviewers may discourage the publishing of science that challenges the prevailing consensus of the time or fails to replicate it – and hype, encouraging the publication of results that seem exciting over those that provide nuance.” — Dattani & Bechhofer
“When non-scientists, who want to apply scientific knowledge elsewhere, read research, they have little way of knowing which methods are sound and which results are reproducible or replicable.” — Dattani & Bechhofer
How to fix it: Interactive online documents, robustness checks/multiverse analysis, learn/maintain the new skills needed for these new organizational methods, automating parts of the process, division of labor, and 3rd party red teams.
“Many critics of open science contend that radical reform asks too much of researchers, but this kind of specialization would fill two needs with one deed: it would reduce the burden of work placed on each individual researcher while increasing the quality and quantity of science conducted by researchers overall.” — Dattani & Bechhofer
My two cents: I’ve really been enjoying the pieces I’ve curated around technological progress, the great stagnation, and science. For someone who has never gone past surface-level school assignments/textbooks, learning about how modern science’s stagnation and rejuvenation is nuts. It seems like this issue (especially in the sciences) is close to reaching its climax of transformation into these new logistical/team-like dynamics that will help science progress faster. I think?
