No, The Internet Is Not Bad For Science; Bad Research Is Bad For Science
from the watch-where-you-place-that-blame dept
Wired has an article discussing the assertion published in the journal Science (not online at the moment) claiming that the internet is bad for science, because researchers just do some searches online and get the most popular hits or the most recent hits, and fail to dig deeper or look at older research. Of course, that's placing the blame on the wrong party. The problem isn't the internet: it's people who do bad research on the internet. If you use the internet as one tool of many in doing your research, and make sure to follow up on reading the actual research and following through on the citations, then the internet can be quite useful. I know I've found that in doing some recent economics research. Being able to search online, in addition to through some print journals, resulted in finding some additional useful research I wouldn't have come across otherwise. Of course, perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that a journal whose history is paper-based would push out an article trashing the internet for research.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Agreed
In the end, I'm mostly mad that he just lumped all researchers together. I know, as a researcher, that many of my fellow chemists never use the most popular article, they use the most relevant article.
Basically, screw this guy, his research sounds like unfounded ideas that try to link trends in his collected data to what he believes to be true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Agreed
Another thing that's not obvious is that searching in scientific literature is really different than doing a google search. Basic science searches look like most search engines' advanced searches.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I call BS
The internet does nothing to stop a bad or lazy reviewer, it just makes them faster, just as it does for a good reviewer. I haven't read the paper in question, and never take anything written for Wired at face value, but I really have to question the conclusions. Ironically enough, I doubt they did enough research before publishing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I second the call of BS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vested Interests
Of course, there are other types - e.g. in the UK, vets are taught to dismiss any reading done by pet owners (even of pukka, peer reviewd stuff in the journals) as "something the owner read on the Internet".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's not forget arXiv
Perhaps it's just sociology "research" such as this that's declining in quality.
* Yes, actually ironic. ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
now in my opinion lazy scientists are bad scientist and are bad for science.
perhaps who ever wrote that article should have done a bit more research.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not bad science, just incomplete
Its not that its "bad science", rather incomplete. If you do any sort of research online you will indeed notice that most references, citations, and articles are recent in terms of their publications.
Its very difficult to find an article/study/etc that was published over 10-15 years ago online. For that, you need to go to your library, do a database search and find the print article.
Consequently, a lot of good articles/studies/etc ARE NOT showing up on line, which does indeed lead to incomplete and possibly biased research.
Another factor to consider is that articles/studies/etc found online through "rogue" websites ARE NOT peer reviewed, empirically validated, etc etc. When a study is published in a print journal, the only way to find it online is through the publishers own website. You are not allowed to re-print that article/study without permission of the journal since they own it.
Consequently, the a lot of the "good" stuff wont be found online, rather in print (unless you access the publishers own online library).
Thus, its not bad science, rather incomplete science.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ohh, and Mike, the Journal Science, while traditionally a paper journal, has done a terrific job converting to digital. I wouldn't be surprised if the overwelming majority of their income comes from University/Industy Site licensing of their online content (inc. "all journals should be free argument"?!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I call BS as well
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Empire Strikes Back
In fact, electronic access to materials should make searching for obscure references easier and faster. Researchers will in fact do more, not less, because academics is still extremely competitive, and the bar for quality research will rise.
The big threat is to peer-reviewed journals, such as Science. Electronic publishing is cheap, and peer reviews can be performed on electronic documents even more easily than paper. The Web opens the door for competition among peer-reviewed publications, and they can't possibly like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not Really
With the appearance of digital indexes, researches can find what they need faster, with less side quests, which to most of us sounds like a good thing. That also means one isn't as versed in the subject unless you go digging for it and you know what to look for.
It's not about the internet per se. It's about search tools, which I generally call a good thing. However, technology does have side affects like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, The Internet Is Not Bad For Science; Bad Research Is Bad For Science
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, The Internet Is Not Bad For Science; Bad Research Is Bad For Science
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ironicly...
Its rather ironic. I wonder if the article ventures to suggest that one the way to address this perceived problem is to put maybe more content, freely available on the internet? I guess I'll never know.
@Bubba "Crimes against humanity" is a bit rough. Journals and trade magazines, just like all of the media need a little time to adapt. Give them awhile they'll come around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
internet bad for science
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Internet helpe with Doctor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about a dose of Intelligent Design Theory?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not this again
Good researchers will look past the first few pages of their search results, in the same way that they wouldn't just refer to the first journal article they find on the subject.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Internet is the only way around establishment censorship
proven to be incorrect! There are NO Black Holes, Dark Matter or Big Bang. But you will never find any mention
of this fact in ANY standard publication. Total
censorship of the correct theory known as ECE rules. But
if you understand tensors, you can read for yourself the
evidence at aias.us. The error is that GR neglects torsion. This error has now persisted for 90 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Narrower specialization is the trend, like it or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
kool
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Internet and Science
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, The Internet Is Not Bad For Science; Bad Research Is Bad For Science
'Science' is a fine and respected peer-reviewed journal.
For a certainty, some bad research is published on the internet, but even bad research is a part of free speech.
A far worse problem is the lack of basic critical thinking skills in our public, and in our students. Even someone lacking in basic science education (which is sad of itself) can do a reasonable job of assessing the relative worth of most research, if they have been taught to question answers rather than just to answer questions.
The irony I find in the 'paper' journal criticizing the bad science on the internet lies in a different direction. Hundreds of scientific journals exist; most of them, now, are controlled by a few, private, publishing cartels.
Very few of them are free. I know of few scientists who are financially able to subscribe to more than 4 or 5. All are utterly forced to rely on the public institution or corporation that employs them for access to a 'family' or two of peer-reviewed journals.
A basic tenet of science is that that it be shared - all of it. That is no longer happening. The irony I find is an elitist, 'paper' journal, a fairly expensive one at that, complaining about so much 'bad research' on the internet. The science publishing cartels, where obviously access is NOT free, are the greatest tacit contributor to the real problem. Much of the research on the internet is free. Often, it is 'instant'. When a few cartels have tight control of most of published science, when access is withheld from those who are not wealthy, 'connected', or otherwise entitled, then most people will be limited to ONLY that research which is free. Much of that 'ONLY' research will not even be peer-reviewed. As well, limited access will invite limited conclusions.
All this might be a little scarey if one thinks it through. We should be scared. So, while the point of the 'Science' article re: 'bad research' on the internet is well taken, perhaps the journal should look at its own feet and include itself as one of the causes. Perhaps the rest of us should remind ourselves to be very thankful for the free internet. the level of competency in research can improve, but meanwhile, someone else owns and controls our science.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
thank you for your share~~!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]