• Gork@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    9 months ago

    There should be more value placed in publishing things that didn’t work as hypothesized. That way scientists in the future can know if a particular approach just doesn’t work.

    Something like this, but completely normalized in the scientific world, where it’s ok to publish attempts, whether they succeed or not.

    • iAvicenna@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      yea unfortunately publishing science (in certain levels) unfortunately now involves %50 razmatazz, %30 having some well established coauthor and %20 over selling. It has turned into a weird ecosystem that feeds on resource (jobs) scarcity in academia and makes insane profits for publishers.

      Not surprised it attracted all kinds of vultures that feed on the scraps (predatory publishers). It is really smelling decay and puss from a mile away.

      • Troy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        I had a null result for my MSc thesis. My supervisor lost interest immediately, and my funding went away. No interest in publishing a failure on his side, because the premise was flawed and he provided the premise. I dropped out and went to industry rather than be student poor with no funding.