science-fictions
Original: science-fictions on Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal
Transcript
Title: "SCIENCE FICTIONS" — A comic based on the book by Stuart Ritchie.
A young scientist (man) and an older academic (man in glasses) are talking.
Young scientist: Science is probably the best thing humanity ever invented.
Older academic: Academia, on the other hand, really isn't.
Young scientist: You might think that advancing in a scientific career would be hard — that scientists are tasked with discovering things about the world, inventing new useful things, and being as meticulous as possible while they do it.
Young scientist: But that's not how the academic system works.
Older academic: Oh see? It gets complicated. Let me 'splain.
Older academic: We don't pay scientists based on their RESULTS. The basic measure of success in science is your PUBLICATION RECORD. You need a couple thousand citations and you've barely got a job.
Young scientist: But that's not how the academic system works.
Older academic: That's because we don't fund science by good results — we fund based on PRESTIGIOUS PUBLICATIONS. It helps if those journals are the really prestigious ones, but lots of publications have lots of citations.
Woman scientist: Did you ever notice that I haven't put out a publication in a year?
Older academic: Drive here and make a free psychological diagnosis using a single group of ten college students!
Labeled note/box: Set Timer.
Sign: JELL-O SHOTS.
Scientists who know their economics will immediately encourage this in a PERVERSE INCENTIVE.
Perverse incentives are like a lottery: awarded grant of the magical monkeys-paw. You get what you ask for, but it's not necessarily what you wanted.
Monkey's paw: I want more papers that claim to be groundbreaking!
Older academic: And for more scientific papers, and that's how you'll get — but it's quite possible that they're not necessarily right in any good.
Scientists are always, and always refusing to publish the most important papers — say scientists refusing to incentive to publish more and more papers, isn't pretty.
Sign: P=0 World — The New Human Universal On Comic Shirts.
WE DON'T HAVE TIME to check the citations, but it's okay because the reviewers don't either.
We don't have to check the data either, but it's okay because we don't have time, and we have a son. Damn it, son! They're alive.
OVERLOOK INCONVENIENT RESULTS.
MASSAGE THE STATISTICS.
[Older academic at a whiteboard with a scribbled chart]
Hype up the importance of your findings to get them into those prestigious journals.
Woman scientist: Want some of your findings?
Woman scientist (whispering): WORK DELUXE BEING SHOCKED. Let's go get a tangled-up pieces! Some of us!
And in some areas, though that bare enough? Get a 'data' error code, label some of your data 'data error code'.
Older academic: Luxury conclusion is RIGHT — so many should run a bunch of lousy data, stand in the way of treatment.
ALAS, the peer review system regularly fails at the dual job of keeping bad studies out of the science literature.
The perverse incentives also help explain some of the more bizarre behavior of scientists in their obsession with publication.
WHAT ELSE could lead to the phenomenon of the panorama of scientists loading their papers with self-citations?
PLAGIARISM: they can previous papers to publish their own work — or just steal someone else's.
[A list labeled "References" with numbered entries]
References
1. Me
2. Me
3. Me
4. Me
5. Me
6. Me
7. Me, Bjornsen, Charles (1899)
8. Me
9. Me
10. Me
Signs/products on a shelf: Asper, Aetherman Aurora; Natural Gabilan Approval; Set Timer; Jell-O Shots.
And even funnier? 'Citation rings' — where they have multiple scientists who agree to mutually cite each other, whether they're relevant or not!
(Two figures in dark glasses) Hey there! May I ask how would you like to score a little academic citation?
The New Human Universe! On Comic Shirts.
Older academic: And yet, here's the strange thing: despite the dishonest state of the academic system, we still make SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS.
The true spirit of science remains, despite the spite of the publication mania.
All of which leaves us with two questions:
Older academic: First, how do we know whether any given scientific paper is producing real knowledge, or is itself a product of being corrupted by the perverse incentives?
Older academic: It's not easy.
Older academic: The old rule of "if it's too good to be true, it probably isn't" applies. Scientists who claim to have made a major discovery are probably overstating things.
Young scientist: It's better we've overturned quantum mechanics or had a measurement error — and I really say we have a hard time figuring out who makes errors.
Studies that immediately lend themselves to one of other political perspective should also be treated with extra caution — particularly if the scientists themselves are promoting that perspective in the wild.
(A TV newscast graphic) NewzBreak
BREAKTHROUGH FINDING: CURRENT ADMINISTRATION SCORES HIGH ON RECENTLY-VALIDATED SCALE OF BASTARDRY.
And perhaps the best advice is to check what other scientists are saying.
[Two figures whispering] This is the surest way to find out the wrong studies that have been thoroughly checked.
You can also find this dubious and dishonest on social media, but all the downsides that obviously imply.
Our second question: How do we fix the broken scientific system? Damage can come from four sources.
Screen/man pointing: You know what else has a small effect size? YOUR ENTIRE CAREER.
Source one: scientific journals can drag their own standards.
They can demand scientists share their data and to make it easier to PUBLISH MORE PAPERS that have a positive result. There's a lot of pressure in a world where journals consistently keep getting more 'publishable' studies.
Source two: universities can change their hiring practices.
Man pointing: They can look beyond publication and citation numbers, rewarding scientists for being good scientific citizens, and for ensuring their work is correct. They can value replication studies.
Man pointing: I just look at all these 'negative results' incredible! Please, don't think of me he as a hero.
Source three: funders can fund different kinds of research.
Man pointing: Instead of funding-hugging projects, funders can fund slower, more incremental types of research.
For example, research that gets out to gain mature previous results are sold or otherwise, rather than previously changing the next 'ground-breaking' advance.
Young scientist: Wait — we found out if it's true?
Source four: scientists themselves can vote with their feet.
They can simply stop publishing in journals that don't enforce their standards. (alt: They can simply stop publishing in journals that don't enforce these standards.)
Those who already have positions at established universities can pressure them to change their hiring practices.
Older academic (Black man): Use my powers for good? I never thought of it that way!
And they can band together to promote open science, sharing data, making their studies completely transparent and ensuring they publish every result they get — even the ones that go against their favourite theory.
Discussing the serious flaws in the scientific system might make you fear you're in the same category as the creationists, anti-vaccine deniers, or climate skeptics.
Speech bubble: MORE LIKE LIE-ENTIST.
Protest signs in crowd: VACCINE / [picket signs]
But disingenuous, disinterested skepticism is the backbone of science, and it's precisely because science is so important to our lives that we need to save it from the perverse academic system.
When science and human nature collide, science comes off worst.
Man (running, sign): WANT HIGHER IMPACT FACTOR?
Older academic: But now we know so much about where it all goes wrong, we can adjust our course and bring science back to doing what it does best:
Discovering the truth.
Votey:
A hand-drawn rough box containing only text:
(EXCEPT FOR WHEN THE TRUTH VIOLATES MY BIASES IN PARTICULAR)
A young scientist (man) and an older academic (man in glasses) are talking.
Young scientist: Science is probably the best thing humanity ever invented.
Older academic: Academia, on the other hand, really isn't.
Young scientist: You might think that advancing in a scientific career would be hard — that scientists are tasked with discovering things about the world, inventing new useful things, and being as meticulous as possible while they do it.
Young scientist: But that's not how the academic system works.
Older academic: Oh see? It gets complicated. Let me 'splain.
Older academic: We don't pay scientists based on their RESULTS. The basic measure of success in science is your PUBLICATION RECORD. You need a couple thousand citations and you've barely got a job.
Young scientist: But that's not how the academic system works.
Older academic: That's because we don't fund science by good results — we fund based on PRESTIGIOUS PUBLICATIONS. It helps if those journals are the really prestigious ones, but lots of publications have lots of citations.
Woman scientist: Did you ever notice that I haven't put out a publication in a year?
Older academic: Drive here and make a free psychological diagnosis using a single group of ten college students!
Labeled note/box: Set Timer.
Sign: JELL-O SHOTS.
Scientists who know their economics will immediately encourage this in a PERVERSE INCENTIVE.
Perverse incentives are like a lottery: awarded grant of the magical monkeys-paw. You get what you ask for, but it's not necessarily what you wanted.
Monkey's paw: I want more papers that claim to be groundbreaking!
Older academic: And for more scientific papers, and that's how you'll get — but it's quite possible that they're not necessarily right in any good.
Scientists are always, and always refusing to publish the most important papers — say scientists refusing to incentive to publish more and more papers, isn't pretty.
Sign: P=0 World — The New Human Universal On Comic Shirts.
WE DON'T HAVE TIME to check the citations, but it's okay because the reviewers don't either.
We don't have to check the data either, but it's okay because we don't have time, and we have a son. Damn it, son! They're alive.
OVERLOOK INCONVENIENT RESULTS.
MASSAGE THE STATISTICS.
[Older academic at a whiteboard with a scribbled chart]
Hype up the importance of your findings to get them into those prestigious journals.
Woman scientist: Want some of your findings?
Woman scientist (whispering): WORK DELUXE BEING SHOCKED. Let's go get a tangled-up pieces! Some of us!
And in some areas, though that bare enough? Get a 'data' error code, label some of your data 'data error code'.
Older academic: Luxury conclusion is RIGHT — so many should run a bunch of lousy data, stand in the way of treatment.
ALAS, the peer review system regularly fails at the dual job of keeping bad studies out of the science literature.
The perverse incentives also help explain some of the more bizarre behavior of scientists in their obsession with publication.
WHAT ELSE could lead to the phenomenon of the panorama of scientists loading their papers with self-citations?
PLAGIARISM: they can previous papers to publish their own work — or just steal someone else's.
[A list labeled "References" with numbered entries]
References
1. Me
2. Me
3. Me
4. Me
5. Me
6. Me
7. Me, Bjornsen, Charles (1899)
8. Me
9. Me
10. Me
Signs/products on a shelf: Asper, Aetherman Aurora; Natural Gabilan Approval; Set Timer; Jell-O Shots.
And even funnier? 'Citation rings' — where they have multiple scientists who agree to mutually cite each other, whether they're relevant or not!
(Two figures in dark glasses) Hey there! May I ask how would you like to score a little academic citation?
The New Human Universe! On Comic Shirts.
Older academic: And yet, here's the strange thing: despite the dishonest state of the academic system, we still make SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS.
The true spirit of science remains, despite the spite of the publication mania.
All of which leaves us with two questions:
Older academic: First, how do we know whether any given scientific paper is producing real knowledge, or is itself a product of being corrupted by the perverse incentives?
Older academic: It's not easy.
Older academic: The old rule of "if it's too good to be true, it probably isn't" applies. Scientists who claim to have made a major discovery are probably overstating things.
Young scientist: It's better we've overturned quantum mechanics or had a measurement error — and I really say we have a hard time figuring out who makes errors.
Studies that immediately lend themselves to one of other political perspective should also be treated with extra caution — particularly if the scientists themselves are promoting that perspective in the wild.
(A TV newscast graphic) NewzBreak
BREAKTHROUGH FINDING: CURRENT ADMINISTRATION SCORES HIGH ON RECENTLY-VALIDATED SCALE OF BASTARDRY.
And perhaps the best advice is to check what other scientists are saying.
[Two figures whispering] This is the surest way to find out the wrong studies that have been thoroughly checked.
You can also find this dubious and dishonest on social media, but all the downsides that obviously imply.
Our second question: How do we fix the broken scientific system? Damage can come from four sources.
Screen/man pointing: You know what else has a small effect size? YOUR ENTIRE CAREER.
Source one: scientific journals can drag their own standards.
They can demand scientists share their data and to make it easier to PUBLISH MORE PAPERS that have a positive result. There's a lot of pressure in a world where journals consistently keep getting more 'publishable' studies.
Source two: universities can change their hiring practices.
Man pointing: They can look beyond publication and citation numbers, rewarding scientists for being good scientific citizens, and for ensuring their work is correct. They can value replication studies.
Man pointing: I just look at all these 'negative results' incredible! Please, don't think of me he as a hero.
Source three: funders can fund different kinds of research.
Man pointing: Instead of funding-hugging projects, funders can fund slower, more incremental types of research.
For example, research that gets out to gain mature previous results are sold or otherwise, rather than previously changing the next 'ground-breaking' advance.
Young scientist: Wait — we found out if it's true?
Source four: scientists themselves can vote with their feet.
They can simply stop publishing in journals that don't enforce their standards. (alt: They can simply stop publishing in journals that don't enforce these standards.)
Those who already have positions at established universities can pressure them to change their hiring practices.
Older academic (Black man): Use my powers for good? I never thought of it that way!
And they can band together to promote open science, sharing data, making their studies completely transparent and ensuring they publish every result they get — even the ones that go against their favourite theory.
Discussing the serious flaws in the scientific system might make you fear you're in the same category as the creationists, anti-vaccine deniers, or climate skeptics.
Speech bubble: MORE LIKE LIE-ENTIST.
Protest signs in crowd: VACCINE / [picket signs]
But disingenuous, disinterested skepticism is the backbone of science, and it's precisely because science is so important to our lives that we need to save it from the perverse academic system.
When science and human nature collide, science comes off worst.
Man (running, sign): WANT HIGHER IMPACT FACTOR?
Older academic: But now we know so much about where it all goes wrong, we can adjust our course and bring science back to doing what it does best:
Discovering the truth.
Votey:
A hand-drawn rough box containing only text:
(EXCEPT FOR WHEN THE TRUTH VIOLATES MY BIASES IN PARTICULAR)
Alt text
A very tall, dense Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal comic titled "Science Fictions," based on the book by Stuart Ritchie. It is a long, lecture-style strip in which an older academic in glasses explains to a younger scientist how the academic system corrupts good science. Through dozens of small panels they cover how scientists are rewarded for publication records and citation counts rather than good results, creating perverse incentives — illustrated with jokes like a monkey's-paw wishing for "more papers that claim to be groundbreaking," a reference list reading "1. Me, 2. Me, 3. Me...," and shady figures in dark glasses offering to sell "academic citations" as part of citation rings. Panels mock practices like overlooking inconvenient results, massaging statistics, hyping findings to land in prestigious journals, self-citation, and plagiarism, with a satirical store shelf of products and a "P=0 World" shirt. The academic notes that science still makes progress despite the dishonest system, then poses two questions: how to tell if a paper is real knowledge (advice: distrust too-good-to-be-true claims, watch for politically convenient findings — shown via a fake "NewzBreak" headline — and check what other scientists say), and how to fix the broken system via four sources: journals raising standards, universities changing hiring to reward good scientific citizenship and replication, funders funding slower incremental research, and scientists voting with their feet by boycotting bad journals and embracing open science. A crowd waves protest signs reading "VACCINE" with a speech bubble "MORE LIKE LIE-ENTIST," and a running figure holds a sign "WANT HIGHER IMPACT FACTOR?" The strip ends optimistically: the academic says now that we know where it goes wrong, we can bring science back to discovering the truth. The votey is a single rough hand-drawn box containing only text: "(EXCEPT FOR WHEN THE TRUTH VIOLATES MY BIASES IN PARTICULAR)" — undercutting the hopeful ending.
Transcribed by Claude Opus 4.8.