I've wanted to put together a website that highlights bad science and resulting journalism (both when journalism exposes bad science, and when journalism furthers bad science).
Would anyone be interested in seeing something like that?
Would anyone be interested in seeing something like that?
Have you taken a look at PubPeer?[1] I guess I don't have the right touch in submitting articles to Hacker News. I've submitted a few that mention this problem of checking and exposing bad science publications, linking to PubPeer, but the articles I submit[2] don't usually enjoy as much discussion from you and other Hacker News participants as I would expect, based on the frequent statements I see here that people would like to help clean up scientific research. There is already a site for that, and it's called PubPeer.
http://retractionwatch.com/2015/08/31/pubpeer-founders-revea...
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/08/pubpeer-s-secret-out-...
I like PubPeer because it can help fix science. But what's also broken is journalism/popular media, and how it encourages "pop science" attitudes. It sensationalizes unproven and dubious content, actually making the public dumber.
Would you agree that there's room for a site that wants to fix science journalism and how the public interacts with science? Heck, it could even link to PubPeer, without directly replacing it.
Problematic publications about science are certainly a big problem, worthy of your attention and mine, and my posting history over 2624 days here on Hacker News may suggest that it is one of my pet issues. How much interest this issue gains here on Hacker News is one thing I look at as I ponder what to do about the problem--it will take a lot of work with a lot of collaborators (some of whose work is cited in my various submissions and comments here) to tackle that problem.
As far as I know about who can participate on PubPeer, absolutely anyone can participate, as long as they have something to say about a particular scientific paper.
He could help you get started :)