As pointed out by many, a reigning mentality
in science is “publish-or-perish.” The pressure to publish results, positive
ones at that, is high. And as a graduate student, I find myself being taught
that this how science is conducted.
To earn my PhD, I have to publish.
The publications generated during my years in graduate
school are supposed to be a way for me to demonstrate what I have learned.
Sadly, publications are frequently plagued by significance bias.
The bias of significance can mean many things. The straightforward
interpretation is that of statistical significance. Any positive data published
must reach significance, and often times it is reached unethically. I agree
with Victoria Stodden, scientists often do not use appropriate statistical
methods to interpret their data. But how a scientist comes to use the wrong
method is varied and is normally born of ignorance and choice. Inappropriate
methods and fishing for significance is a frequent occurrence in science, and
it is often caused and perpetuated by a scientist’s pressure to publish.
Another aspect of the significance bias is the drive for
something to be novel. What is often valued in science is something that shakes
the foundation of its field. Not so surprisingly, many publications that do
this are often untruthful, irreproducible or flawed. Replication of data is
important to determine the truth in a situation and no scientist should be
afraid of it. Horvath stated that, “If replication were the gold standard of
scientific progress, we would still be banging our heads against our benches
trying to arrive at the precise values that Galileo reported. Clearly this
isn’t the case.” I disagree, replication is a gold standard for the progress of
science. Replication by many is simply more evidence that what was observed is
real, and we can come to accept it as fact and move on from it. And yet, science
as a community rewards those who publish in high impact journals, even if there
data is wrong. The rewards of more funding and notoriety just reinforce the “publish-or-perish”
mentality.
At present, science is stuck in the mentality of “publish-or-perish.”
It is unlikely, that this and our obsession with significance will ever change,
until science is no longer approached as a for profit business.
I definitely agree that the "publish or perish" mentality sets up for a lot of pressure to deliver data that doesn't always find significance, truth, or is reproducible. As a student having to achieve publications is the metric to success, so I wonder what other items may be better serve as a goal to establish success in the field. Is there another method we can use to evaluate students and young scientists that may help to establish an environment that does not hinge so heavily on publications? Should retractions and incorrect data negatively affect grant funding, future publications acceptance?
ReplyDeleteThe mentality that our worth as a scientist comes purely from the number of publications can be flawed. It often neglects to take into account the difficulty of the experiments and techniques used by the scientist and can lead to bias. Even though some rules and regulations exist like peer review that attempt to filter these "flawed" findings I find it important to note the movement towards ethical science. It is often times that mistakes come from ignorance; therefore, I applaud institutional attempts to decrease the bias towards significance. For example, the Emory Integrity project as well as multiple programs by the Ethics office of Emory attempt to educate scientist on ethical and unbiased research methods.
ReplyDelete