the usual "publication bias" is reversed.
It used to be that positive results are likelier to get published, yielding a literature biased towards positive results.
Nowadays, publishing negative replication results is hugely popular. It is easier to publish. And many times the original authors even do not get the privilege of responding.
The social media reaction is very supportive, whereas original authors even if their arguments are sensible, are harshly scorned.
Publication bias now favors "positive failures". You are likely to get published if you can find a headlines grabbing "failure to replicate"
It used to be that positive results are likelier to get published, yielding a literature biased towards positive results.
Nowadays, publishing negative replication results is hugely popular. It is easier to publish. And many times the original authors even do not get the privilege of responding.
The social media reaction is very supportive, whereas original authors even if their arguments are sensible, are harshly scorned.
Publication bias now favors "positive failures". You are likely to get published if you can find a headlines grabbing "failure to replicate"
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment