In this multipart series on bad science, PeerJ co-founder Jason Hoyt speaks with University of Oxford Professor Dorothy Bishop about the pressures to publish great results, p-hacking, registered reports, and open science.
1:50 – When she first learned how pervasive p-hacking was
6:30 – PeerJ Preprint “Distinguishing polemic from commentary in science” – cherry-picking data. Pseudoscience of wifi causing autism.
10:17 – At what point do we have enough red flags to call it bad science?
13:30 – Battle against pseudoscience as a weapon
15:33 – Career suicide if you point out errors in science + Diederik Stapel
18:25 – Your reputation. Everybody knows who to trust, or not trust – even if they don’t admit it.
21:00 – Pressure to publish; academic careerism; Nobel Laureates at LMB Cambridge.
26:08 – Grants and short-term contracts. US vs UK funding. Contributing to bad science.
29:38 – Way out could be reproducible science; registered reports
39:33 – Bad science as an epidemic
LINKSDorothy Bishop on Twitter (@deevybee)Dorothy Bishop’s BlogPeerJ on TwitterJason Hoyt on Twitter
Grimes DR, Bishop DV. (2017) Distinguishing polemic from commentary in science: Some guidelines illustrated with the case of Sage and Burgio, 2017. PeerJ Preprints 5:e3355v1 https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.3355v1
Flawed science: The fraudulent research practices of social psychologist Diederik Stapel [PDF]
Montgomery, K., & Oliver, AL. (2017). Conceptualizing Fraudulent Studies as Viruses: New Models for Handling Retractions. MINERVA, 55(1), 49-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11024-016-9311-z Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0m85502m
Original music by Jeremy Sherman.