,
4 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
This is so important and it negatively affects science in many ways. Here are two
1) authors delay publishing interesting findings while searching for mechanism. uncovering the true “mechanism” is undoubtedly delayed
2) requirement for mechanism leads authors to fit results
1) authors delay publishing interesting findings while searching for mechanism. uncovering the true “mechanism” is undoubtedly delayed
2) requirement for mechanism leads authors to fit results
What I mean is, that the hunt for mechanism results in the worst kind of science where the goal becomes getting a result rather than getting the correct result. I have made this mistake and regret it. As a % of total corrections, how over-represented are “mechanism” figures?
Would love to see data on this if available:
“For example, a JCI Insight paper might report a fascinating new phenotype in a preclinical model or novel observations in a clinical study without a full exploration of the underlying mechanism.” jci.org/articles/view/…
