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

Academia

892 readers
5 users here now

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] livus@kbin.social 16 points 1 year 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 1 year 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 1 year ago

Paul Erdos has entered the chat.

[–] inspxtr@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year 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 1 year ago

It's all pretend with physics.

Jk don't

[–] swicano@kbin.social 2 points 1 year 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 1 year 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.