Publication Bias and Replication Crisis

[Ontophobe]

I've heard tell of a science journal like Science or Nature that a) only publishes studies with null results, and/or b) only publishes heavily replicated studies. Is this true? and if so, what's it called?

 

[davenn]

I've heard tell of a science journal ...

where did you hear that ?

 

[rumborak]

I wouldn't single out Nature or Science here since they are top-notch publications.

Publication bias is a general issue, resulting from human nature. Magazines and Journals need to keep their readers, and nobody gets excited about a "10 things that totally didn't work" article. It's good science to publish that, but it's bad business.

 

[Ontophobe]

I heard it from a friend. Where he heard it from I don't know.

You're right. It's a business. I don't fault Science or Nature specifically. But I'm with Popper on the role of falsification in science, so basically, I'd absolutely want to read a "10 Things That Totally Didn't Work" article.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I heard it from a friend. Where he heard it from I don't know.

That's not really something we can track down. Not much better than "I know a guy who knows a guy..."

I'd absolutely want to read a "10 Things That Totally Didn't Work" article.

Do you subscribe to Science or Nature? If so, write them and tell them. If not, well, why would they care what a non-subscriber thinks?

 

[A.T.]

I heard it from a friend. Where he heard it from I don't know.

Maybe he was talking about this recent video?

 

[Vanadium 50]

PF's favorite pastime - guess what the OP meant,

 

[Dale]

This thread is closed for now.

@Ontophobe if you have a specific professional article you would like to discuss then please let me know by PM and I will reopen the thread.