The "publish or perish" aphorism and how you should consider it when interpreting literature

[aids]

Already, researchers are often not duly compensated for their contributions to the improvement of the human condition, even when making relatively ground-breaking discoveries/findings, and academic journals aren't going to publish a bunch of null hypotheses that have just been validated.

Unfortunately, what this means is that researchers are not as significantly motivated to confirm already-thought information as they are to contradict it with their findings.

This is what is causing the ongoing replication crisis in science. As per Daryl Bem, there are two types of papers you can write:

1. The one that you planned.
2. The one that makes sense after you see the results.

Say we're ascribing significance to a p-value of 0.05, then if we measure enough variables, cut our sample in enough ways, then one time in 20 will get a spuriously significant result even if this result is inaccurate.

So, if you like to think of yourself as an innovator when it comes to pharmacology or anything adjacent, where your interpretation of literature will greatly influence your decisions (and consequently, your health), you must understand that basing your decisions on very few, or even a single study is incredibly naive.

The TL;DR is that you can't go gung ho just because one piece of literature confirmed your likely already-biased perspective. Approach science with it in your conscious that you could be wrong.

 

[LeanByDecemer]