Becky's Brainy Bites
@rebekkabrandt.bsky.social
On scientific blind spots and biases |
academic researcher & Essayist |
https://www.research-reviewer.blogspot.com
academic researcher & Essayist |
https://www.research-reviewer.blogspot.com
Replication is essential but undervalued. Funding rarely supports it, journals often reject it, and careers don’t reward it.
What does it say about science if verifying discoveries is less important than announcing new ones?
#metasci
What does it say about science if verifying discoveries is less important than announcing new ones?
#metasci
November 25, 2025 at 12:00 PM
Replication is essential but undervalued. Funding rarely supports it, journals often reject it, and careers don’t reward it.
What does it say about science if verifying discoveries is less important than announcing new ones?
#metasci
What does it say about science if verifying discoveries is less important than announcing new ones?
#metasci
Research trends shift rapidly, and scientists often follow them to stay relevant. Novelty is rewarded, while incremental or unconventional work struggles for attention. Trend-chasing can create bubbles of interest and neglect deeper, unresolved questions.
#philsci
#SciWri
#philsci
#SciWri
November 25, 2025 at 12:10 AM
Researchers must simplify their work for public outreach, but simplification often becomes distortion. Funding agencies want “clear narratives,” journalists want angles, and audiences want certainty. Science gets packaged into digestible truths that don't reflect the underlying complexity.
#SciWri
#SciWri
November 24, 2025 at 2:26 PM
Researchers must simplify their work for public outreach, but simplification often becomes distortion. Funding agencies want “clear narratives,” journalists want angles, and audiences want certainty. Science gets packaged into digestible truths that don't reflect the underlying complexity.
#SciWri
#SciWri
Hyper-specialization creates depth, but also isolation: researchers lose sight of bigger questions because they’re trapped in narrow domains. When expertise becomes too fragmented, interdisciplinary insight becomes impossible. Are we gaining precision but losing perspective?
#SciWri
#PhilSci
#SciWri
#PhilSci
November 23, 2025 at 12:34 PM
A device looks impressive, but we forget they simplify reality. Eye-tracking shows where people look, but not what they think. AI can summarize medical symptoms, but it cannot read uncertainty or context. The danger is not “bad technology” but blind trust in its outputs.
#SciWri
#metasci
#SciWri
#metasci
November 22, 2025 at 11:51 AM
To scientists:
Is integrity a personal trait—or a luxury few can afford in today’s system?
Is integrity a personal trait—or a luxury few can afford in today’s system?
November 21, 2025 at 2:48 PM
To scientists:
Is integrity a personal trait—or a luxury few can afford in today’s system?
Is integrity a personal trait—or a luxury few can afford in today’s system?
Small compromises are easy to justify: a slightly biased sample, a loosely interpreted method, a convenient omission. Over time, “almost ethical” becomes the norm. When competition intensifies, these compromises grow. Does the system encourage integrity, or does it quietly reward cutting corners?
November 20, 2025 at 2:20 PM
Small compromises are easy to justify: a slightly biased sample, a loosely interpreted method, a convenient omission. Over time, “almost ethical” becomes the norm. When competition intensifies, these compromises grow. Does the system encourage integrity, or does it quietly reward cutting corners?
Science claims to be transparent, but key elements—raw data, code, lab notes, failed experiments—rarely see daylight. Journals prefer polished narratives over messy realities. Without transparency, replication becomes guesswork, and errors persist.
November 19, 2025 at 1:42 PM
Science claims to be transparent, but key elements—raw data, code, lab notes, failed experiments—rarely see daylight. Journals prefer polished narratives over messy realities. Without transparency, replication becomes guesswork, and errors persist.
Universities reward speed, output, and compliance. Researchers must align with institutional priorities if they want careers: strategic projects, strategic topics, strategic alliances. How can science remain independent when job survival depends on saying “yes” more often than asking “why”?
November 18, 2025 at 2:27 PM
Universities reward speed, output, and compliance. Researchers must align with institutional priorities if they want careers: strategic projects, strategic topics, strategic alliances. How can science remain independent when job survival depends on saying “yes” more often than asking “why”?
In many fields, everything must become “data.” Complex experiences, behaviors, and social realities are compressed into numbers for the sake of analysis. But measurement changes what is measured: subtlety disappears, nuance collapses, and insight gets lost in quantification.
#datafication
#datafication
November 17, 2025 at 7:57 PM
In many fields, everything must become “data.” Complex experiences, behaviors, and social realities are compressed into numbers for the sake of analysis. But measurement changes what is measured: subtlety disappears, nuance collapses, and insight gets lost in quantification.
#datafication
#datafication
Modern research often treats methods as unquestionable routines. We trust statistical packages, default settings, and tutorials more than reasoning. If the method becomes a ritual instead of a choice, how much of the knowledge we produce is genuinely examined?
November 16, 2025 at 7:02 PM
Modern research often treats methods as unquestionable routines. We trust statistical packages, default settings, and tutorials more than reasoning. If the method becomes a ritual instead of a choice, how much of the knowledge we produce is genuinely examined?
To researchers: When you write a paper, who are you really writing for—readers, reviewers, or algorithms?
November 15, 2025 at 1:31 PM
To researchers: When you write a paper, who are you really writing for—readers, reviewers, or algorithms?
How reproducible is curiosity itself when methods are standardized to the point of habit?
November 14, 2025 at 6:38 PM
How reproducible is curiosity itself when methods are standardized to the point of habit?
To researchers: Do you ever feel your creativity shrink between the lines of a grant proposal?
November 13, 2025 at 5:38 PM
To researchers: Do you ever feel your creativity shrink between the lines of a grant proposal?
Citation counts and h-indices look like progress, but they measure visibility, not truth. The system rewards noise, not depth. If we stopped counting and started thinking, what kind of science would emerge?
November 12, 2025 at 5:06 PM
Citation counts and h-indices look like progress, but they measure visibility, not truth. The system rewards noise, not depth. If we stopped counting and started thinking, what kind of science would emerge?
When research becomes trend-driven, knowledge stops expanding—it starts orbiting fashion. Each “hot topic” burns bright and fades. True progress doesn’t trend; it accumulates. How do we protect inquiry from popularity?
November 11, 2025 at 5:44 PM
When research becomes trend-driven, knowledge stops expanding—it starts orbiting fashion. Each “hot topic” burns bright and fades. True progress doesn’t trend; it accumulates. How do we protect inquiry from popularity?
Many enter science out of wonder and leave it out of exhaustion. Somewhere between discovery and deliverables, curiosity gets managed into silence. What would happen if wonder became a metric again?
November 10, 2025 at 10:04 PM
Many enter science out of wonder and leave it out of exhaustion. Somewhere between discovery and deliverables, curiosity gets managed into silence. What would happen if wonder became a metric again?
“Publish or perish” sounds like ambition, but it’s fear disguised as productivity. When every idea must yield a paper, the quiet questions—the slow ones—die first. What if value in science was measured by insight, not output?
November 9, 2025 at 12:26 PM
“Publish or perish” sounds like ambition, but it’s fear disguised as productivity. When every idea must yield a paper, the quiet questions—the slow ones—die first. What if value in science was measured by insight, not output?
Integrity in research isn’t a policy—it’s a daily risk. To tell a "truth", an unexpected result, can mean losing funding, allies, or career paths. How free is science when honesty feels unsafe?
November 8, 2025 at 1:36 PM
Integrity in research isn’t a policy—it’s a daily risk. To tell a "truth", an unexpected result, can mean losing funding, allies, or career paths. How free is science when honesty feels unsafe?
Socrates questioned certainty to reach truth. Today, we defend certainty to reach funding. Somewhere along the way, doubt became unprofessional. What would modern science look like if it rediscovered the art of asking?
November 7, 2025 at 5:39 PM
Socrates questioned certainty to reach truth. Today, we defend certainty to reach funding. Somewhere along the way, doubt became unprofessional. What would modern science look like if it rediscovered the art of asking?
We once built methods to explore the unknown. Now methods are the comfort zone—followed like recipes, defended like rituals. If the method becomes the goal, who’s still doing science and who’s just formatting curiosity?
November 6, 2025 at 4:24 PM
We once built methods to explore the unknown. Now methods are the comfort zone—followed like recipes, defended like rituals. If the method becomes the goal, who’s still doing science and who’s just formatting curiosity?
Peer review was meant as dialogue. It became a gate. When every reviewer guards the norm, who protects the idea that doesn’t fit it? Maybe science needs less approval—and more courage to stand outside consensus.
November 4, 2025 at 8:37 PM
Peer review was meant as dialogue. It became a gate. When every reviewer guards the norm, who protects the idea that doesn’t fit it? Maybe science needs less approval—and more courage to stand outside consensus.
When researchers agree too quickly, science risks groupthink: consensus replaces curiosity, and dissent is silenced. Papers repeat each other; funding favors safe topics. True progress demands voices that challenge, not just echo. Is research rewarding conformity over insight?
November 2, 2025 at 10:26 AM
When researchers agree too quickly, science risks groupthink: consensus replaces curiosity, and dissent is silenced. Papers repeat each other; funding favors safe topics. True progress demands voices that challenge, not just echo. Is research rewarding conformity over insight?
Have we mistaken consistency for reliability—and convenience for rigor?
#ResearchQuality
#ResearchQuality
October 31, 2025 at 1:27 PM
Have we mistaken consistency for reliability—and convenience for rigor?
#ResearchQuality
#ResearchQuality
To researchers: If “impact” were measured in insight rather than numbers—how different would your CV look?
October 30, 2025 at 12:58 PM
To researchers: If “impact” were measured in insight rather than numbers—how different would your CV look?