this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2023
97 points (100.0% liked)

Academia

791 readers
2 users here now

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] livus@kbin.social 16 points 11 months ago

Wow, this really is disturbing. Clinical medicine is the last field where we want to see fraud and fudging of numbers.

[–] Ashyr@sh.itjust.works 12 points 11 months ago

Here's a really great video on the topic in regard to the head of Havard's astrophysics department.

https://youtu.be/aY985qzn7oI?si=V7YS5RXstfYoEXc6

[–] MacGuffin94@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

Paul Erdos has entered the chat.

[–] inspxtr@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago (2 children)

anyone care to shed light on how physics authorship practices differ from the others that results in its exclusion?

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 3 points 11 months ago

It's all pretend with physics.

Jk don't

[–] swicano@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Agreed, I was a bit confused as to why all of physics is such a blatant outlier. Maybe big experimental physics (e.g. LHC) with their 150+ author papers?

[–] inspxtr@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

yeah but there are so many types of physics, theoretical and experimental, as well as physics that blend into other fields. Seems like a big field to leave out?

regardless, my guess is one could easily control for author sizes of team science papers, or filter them out for separate analyses.

maybe there’s some special authorship culture in physics that warrants this.