I’d like to express my gratitude and admiration for who edited this piece I wrote. She pushed back in all the right ways and improved the essay, and also dealt with my stubbornness with grace. Thank you!
"Instead of punishing people who flag errors, we should scramble to hire them, give them prizes and award them grants so they can keep improving science... It’s only thanks to error detectors that we can proclaim that science is self-correcting"
"The least we can do is provide a space for fact-based criticism that is safe from intimidation and retaliation. It’s only thanks to error detectors that we can proclaim that science is self-correcting."
I agree with every word of this excellent piece by Those who invest time & energy into detecting scientific errors perform a valuable public service, usually for little reward & often at great personal cost. They deserve funding & support.
Article in Nature: “Scientists are very quick to say that science is self-correcting, but those who do the work behind this correction often get accused of damaging their field, or worse.” Indeed! Look at the response to criticism of the #PACEtrial. #MECFS
"It’s time to be kinder to those doing the criticizing, and to demand more accountability and humility from those in power." in .
This is the rhetoric of the new elite of scientists enacting the principles of a classic revolution: 1) new worldviews are incontestable truths; 2) transgressor must be persecuted; >>
Thought-provoking read: "Researchers are often warned against pointing out errors — and sometimes kindness is used as justification. They are told to focus on improving their own research ... There are several problems with these arguments."
Two bonzer pieces by to see in the new year: “A toast to the error detectors” “Do We Want to Be Credible or Incredible?”
A toast to the error detectors
Let 2020 be the year in which we value those who ensure that science is self-correcting.
Several superb New Year’s resolutions for science, by "There should be greater transparency and other measures of accountability over editors, senior authors and reviewers."
This, absolutely 👇🏽
Excellent piece by in on why we need to be more open to criticism if science is to be self-correcting...
Thoughtful piece. I've received nasty emails & personal attacks for criticising the insect apocalypse saga. Yes, I've worried about my career. But the many colleagues who have supported me (publicly & privately) are stronger than the few nasties!
Very nice piece on scientific errors/fraud: "Instead of punishing people who flag errors, we should scramble to hire them, give them prizes and award them grants so they can keep improving science."
"Scientists are very quick to say that science is self-correcting, but those who do the work behind this correction often get accused of damaging their field, or worse" -
A toast to the error detectors
If you are expressing valid scientific criticism & defending scientific integrity, you are not unkind. You are contributing to our fallible understanding of how nature works. Anyone who tells you otherwise is gaslighting. A toast to the error detectors
A toast to the error detectors 👏👏
📝Vazire教授のview 科学は自己修正できるとしつつも、時に誤りを指摘した人は攻撃される。科学的批判は科学の健全な発展に重要で攻撃から保護し評価する必要があり、大学はポリシー整備や教育を行い、journalも明確・確固たる役割を果たす必要がある、とのこと
Software developers tend to assume their systems have errors and use a really cute term for them: bugs. Might work for science too. Instead of 'finding errors', how about calling it 'scientific debugging'?
"Funders and research-evaluation committees should find ways to support and recognize all the work that error detection requires." and see my comments in
A toast to the error detectors
"we should.... award them grants so they can keep improving science." Thanks to for funding our error detection project for the next 3 years!! 🥊
Science must allow criticism. Critique is not bullying. The difference is 1. Critiquing the argument not the person. 2. Being constructive. A toast to the error detectors
A valuable message: A toast to the error detectors
A toast to the error detectors: "The least we can do is provide a space for fact-based criticism that is safe from intimidation and retaliation. It’s only thanks to error detectors that we can proclaim that science is self-correcting."
In her 'toast to the error detectors', states: "Instead of punishing people who flag errors, we should give them prizes and grants so they can keep improving #Science."
A toast to the error detectors
A toast to the error detectors
“The least we can do is provide a space for fact-based criticism that is safe from intimidation and retaliation. It’s only thanks to error detectors that we can proclaim that science is self-correcting.” A toast to the error detectors
“Advisers can get away with awful behaviour — bullying, harassment and other abuses of power”
"Let 2020 be the year in which we value those who ensure that science is self-correcting"
"Scientific criticism must not be conflated with bullying. It’s not fair to victims of actual bullying to use the term so loosely and inappropriately. Instead, we need mechanisms to protect those who engage in scientific criticism."
"Scientific criticism must not be conflated with bullying." a call to restore science's power for self-correction by
"we need mechanisms to protect those who engage in scientific criticism. These mechanisms would make science fairer and more inclusive."
Did you see her Nature editorial on error detection?
, brilliant and insightful as usual
The most valuable people in science are often amongst the most detested within the profession.
From : A toast to the error detectors 🥂
A toast to the error detectors
A toast to the error detectors. Let 2020 be the year in which we value those who ensure that science is self-correcting.
As we start a new year and a new decade, calls for better appreciation & recognition of those who ensure that science is self-correcting
From 's recent article in Nature: "We should do more to make criticism an established part of science." Yes. If so, then, either: 1. Sanction "Fucking Retards" AND #bropenscience or 2. Sanction neither.
And now for something completely different...
Encouraging self-correction in science is crucial, as highlighted . Apart from cross-correction, we also need more self-correction by authors. To encourage this added 'Withdrawal'&'Partial retraction' formats
A toast to the error detectors
A toast to the error detectors: "The least we can do is provide a space for fact-based criticism that is safe from intimidation and retaliation. It’s only thanks to error detectors that we can proclaim that science is self-correcting"