Article Reflection No. 3 (4/16/2022)

Article #3: The big idea: should we get rid of the scientific paper?

Reflection:

Misinformation is rampant across the U.S. today, and, especially for COVID-19, many Americans turn to science for the truth. Although following science is more reliable and pragmatic compared to turning to the deep depths of social media, journalist Stuart Ritchie poses the following question in his article: should the data-filled scientific papers be removed?

In his article, writer Stuart Ritchie highlights four main points to support his argument that scientific papers should be removed, but, for the sake of my reflection, I will include two. To begin, he emphasizes on the issue of publication bias, in which exciting, contentious results from studies yield higher chances of publication in a scientific journal. In hopes of boosting the scientific results, wrote Ritchie, many scientists sacrifice the power of transparency in their papers. When I read about this, I wasn’t surprised. Perhaps a Ted-ED video about scientific journals I had watched several months ago possessed some influence on my reaction, but the world today is filled with non-transparency.

The journalist’s next argument was about corrections. For scientific papers, corrections are ubiquitously made by peers’ reviews. However, not all study papers have yet received a peer review, further undermining their credibility. Furthermore, the process of correcting something in a scientific paper is tedious and long work. To do so, one must write to the journal, catch the attention of the editor, and write an entirely new paper, in which the correction is discussed in-detail. As shown, this process is not tempting for scientists, and even those “who request corrections find themselves stonewalled or otherwise ignored by journals” (Ritchie 8). At this, I felt a pang of empathy for scientists who are willing to go through extra steps if it meant that they could usher out more accurate information or data. The key to this, I thought, may be a new process where scientists are openly encouraged to request corrections, or are required to receive corrections.

To help mend this improper system, Ritchie introduces the concept of mini-websites, or notebooks, that “openly report the results of a given study” (Ritchie 10). This, he says, will be a system of platforms where accumulated data is constantly updated, and readers will (as necessary) have access to truthful research. I have not thought of this method before, and I agree with it. My next question is: how will this platforms system be introduced to the world of scientific papers and journalism?