Daniel Kahneman “I placed too much faith in underpowered studies”
People are starting to learn that the vast majority of &quot;science&quot; are poorly-controlled white papers that get accepted and are never looked at again unless it is by a group of replication-crazed people (or what I like to call &quot;actual scientists&quot;) reviewing conclusions drawn from decades-old papers.<p>Discouraging replication in the tenure track is a large contributor to this. &quot;Novelty&quot; is literally written in the &quot;guidelines for authors&quot; sections of many journals. They want the newest, brightest, most headline-catching &quot;research&quot; to disseminate. And so do the educational institutions. No wonder why the incentives are so perverse.<p>On top of this, most accepted research is allowed to be published without open access, open data, open peer-review history (how many rounds did it go, what were the objections, how did the researchers answer them, etc), and with the aforementioned lack of replication.<p>It&#x27;s incredibly frustrating being someone who loves science, works in the field of science, and is skeptical about the system, which used to be a prerequisite and is now looked at like luddite behavior.