Any good overviews where studies are continously integrated other than Wikipedia articles and conventional static document reviews?



Any major trial results to be released this year to add to the "2023 in science" Wikipedia article? The first NASA UFO study and Galileo Project results are due this year, are there more studies as big as these?



How do you keep track of scientific &amp; science policy developments? Will there ever be a proper functional adopted science-policy interface (PSI) or is that an utopian hope and we head for chaotic patchfixing and collapse?



Can /sci/ debate recent actual studies/results or metascience topics?



Reply if a major study is missing here or if you have some concerns about an included one. There used to be 7-9 tiles with long-form text but I had to increase the number of short items and last month was exceptional.

>>15395902 (OP)

>Any good overviews where studies are continously integrated other than Wikipedia articles and conventional static document reviews?

https://retractionwatch.com/

Retraction Watch does a summary report at the end of every week, thats the best source of news.

Paying heed to the massive volume of replication crisis publications is a waste of time, you can learn more faster via process of elimination by studying what is fake

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_in_science#March

>Retraction Watch does a summary report at the end of every week, thats the best source of news.

>Paying heed to the massive volume of replication crisis publications is a waste of time

I think it's a constructive site but I very much disagree with the former and the latter is partly why I'm making these summaries in the first place.



Paying substantial attention to maybe 10% of the 0.001% of papers that are retracted is a waste of time. Over three years there were only two featured papers that were retracted and those fooled lots of people and one of those would have been unreasonable to not feature because of the giant public+field attention to it at the time.

>>15395902 (OP)

Just wanted to say that we appreciate your work a lot, anon. Thanks!

>>15395902 (OP)

I don't like you, OP, but you put in effort. Bump

>>15397605 Thank you, happy to hear that!



Thanks, I know I'm not that likable - partly that's because I don't have much to lose...but I think it's also because I try to adhere to science as much as possible, not trying to sound neutral and calm for example but relaying what good/robust/latest science does say (neutrally) and trying to act accordingly (in general). So even if there was an incentive for me to be more likable, things may stay more or less the same.

If it's something about the summaries that I could change I'd be interested to hear why that is, but if you just disagree with either the climate science or Covid19-related things, there (most likely) won't be any change.

>>15395902 (OP)

>more pandemic alarmism

>more climate alarmism

>capitalism bad

Yes, stopped reading

>in picrel:

>[random stupid bullshit]

>[...] transnational corporations are responsible for escalating rates of avoidable ill health [...]

>[random stupid bullshit]

Wow, globohomo bad? Amazing conclusion! Who woulda thunk it? Good job, here's a pat on the head. Now try finding out something there hasn't been rumors about for at least 2 decades!
