There is a high likeliness one may find methodological flaws. I didn't read the original paper.
reply
I just wonder who financed the research and what outcome that they wanted to buy. As is often the case, since The ScienceTM is often for sale to the highest bidder, until I see the results replicated, outside of the peer-review process, I won’t quite believe it. I don’t trust the peer-review process, at all, either.
reply
I understand where you come from.
I think these observations on who financed the research are very field-dependent too. Any big pharma-related research warrants a high amount of scrutiny and skepticism. In other fields, it really depends on the financial incentives. I can say for a fact that I never got pressured to publish in one direction or the other. I might have better chances at funding if I publish on the latest hot topic (quantum computation, machine learning, etc), but once I have secured funding, I can publish on any topic I want with any results I observe. But that's probably a perk of doing fundamental physics kind of stuff. Potential monetization is usually decades down the road.
I would prefer more recognition were possible in terms of publishing negative results (when a piece of research does not confirm your initial assumptions and ends up being a methodological contribution more than anything else) whereas positive results are usually more likely to get you into high-impact journals.
There is much to be said about the flaws of peer-review, for-profit journals, scientific fraud, etc... but that's a topic for another time ;)
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @nym 21 Oct
It was an interesting paper, but I don't think the sample size is large enough, like with a lot of papers.
reply
One question I would ask would be if it were a random sample, large enough to statistically be relevant.
reply
Yes, that would be for a whole different conversation at another time.
reply