Posted on 08/23/2023 8:29:45 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
A top international science journal funded by the federal government recently acknowledged that thousands of its published research papers may contain misleading language.
More than 2,600 of the papers from "Science," the peer-reviewed academic journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and one of the world's top academic journals, were examined in depth by another research journal, "Scientometrics." It found in a study that from 1997 to 2021, the use of "hedging" words have fallen by about 40%.
The study’s co-author and Nanjing University linguist Ying Wei said this revelation ought to be concerning because "essentially, the nature of academic knowledge is indeterminate."
In academic writing, "hedging" means using cautious language (i.e., "could" or "appear to") to avoid sounding overconfident and giving readers a misleading conclusion.
In 1997, there were about 115.8 hedging examples per 10,000 words. But by 2021, there were only 67.42 for the same amount.
Science’s news division highlighted this study of its research, and said that the reduction in hedging, according to some, "suggests a worrisome rise of unreliable, exaggerated claims."
According to the non-profit Influence Watch, "the federal government is the largest identifiable source of funding for AAAS," giving it $3.3 million annually between 2008 – 2017, not counting other grants it has received. Science was first published in 1880 with seed money from Thomas Edison.
Continuing, the journal group said "less hedging may reflect a subtle strategy by authors to sell their results to editors and readers as an alternative to explicit exaggeration," according to the study.
In 2020, AAAS highlighted several scientists who steadfastly insisted that questions regarding Covid-19 coming from the Wuhan lab was merely "a conspiracy theory." AAAS also repeatedly promoted Covid-19 vaccinations.
Social psychologist Melissa Wheeler reacted to the study’s findings, warning that prudence in academic research is "vital to communicating what one’s data can actually say and what it merely implies."
"If academic writing becomes more about the rhetoric ... it will become more difficult for readers to decipher what is groundbreaking and truly novel."
A research journal from 2015 published by the British Medical Association's weekly peer-reviewed medical trade journal, (BMA), found similar results, stating that "scientific abstracts are currently written with more positive and negative words," which means "apparently scientists look on the bright side of research results. But whether this perception fits reality should be questioned."
Despite the significant decline in hedging, Science denies that this has necessarily led to less reliable evidence. Instead, executive editor Valda Vinsion stated in the report that it may be due to authors being asked to provide additional supporting information.
"We tone down language if it comes across as definitive when [the evidence] is not," she said.
Science associate news editor Jeffrey Brainard declined to comment when reached by Just the News.
I would suggest, not from actually studying the data, that those ‘hyped’ claims had much to do with climate science.
I think the starting point for the evaluation should begin with determining if the topics of papers are actually science. There’s a big difference between science and social/political engineering.
bkmk
let me guess all 2600 are in reference to climate change!
The first day of my first statistics course from good old fashioned professor:
Statistics NEVER give you an answer! At best, it might give you another question.
The problem is people want answers, they don’t like questions.
Statistics is not used for it’s original purpose. Especially complex situations like climate, people, surveys. with almost infinite variables.
“Peer reviewed” has never meant anything to me. You can pick your like-minded peers and override an amazing amount of solid reality by doing so.
Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics!
When scientists have an agenda such as Climate Change or various different gender definitions, I dismiss them out of hand.
Scientists used to confirm homosexuality is a mental disorder. Now they don’t.
Were they wrong then? Or are they wrong now?
A good amount of them probably try to tell us that "gay" parenting is perfectly healthy.
When you mix politics with science, you get politics.
Every newspaper and media news outlet does the same. It’s insulting.
Let me guess, the AMOUNT of exaggeration is in DIRECT PROPORTION to the AMOUNT of Government funding received.
Settled Science my A@@. More like Bought and Paid for Science!!!
When the peer review process is broken or corrupted, “science” is no longer trustworthy.
$cience can be exaggerated? No way...
My educated guess tells me that the vast majority are in two fields - climate and medicine.
They leave you wondering about the subjects. I would argue that virtually everyone with a PhD is in a forced position to produce ‘some’ paper, whether its factual or not....to keep funding or positions. Wouldn’t shock me if 50-percent of all papers in a given year are fraudulent.
Ought to be some punishment here....you lose your PhD ‘license’ for two years if you produce fraud.
“When you mix politics with science, you get politics.”
Or more precisely, industrial level fraud.
Note: study from Chinese public university. One governmental corrupt institution criticizing another corrupted institution.
But yes, I have noticed lots of “could be” and “Mays” and “somehow”, and “could rewrite the book” , “we never looked at” and other weasel words in lots of scientific writings.
Reader beware. Now many scientists are in same class as salesmen, Hollywood publicists, or corrupt televangelists.
Follow the money.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.