Lately the majority of studies that i come across appear to all be meta studies.
Which really is to sum up the results of other studies to draw conclusions?
Made even worse since a few do say they have not read the whole reports of the studies they include.
That seems like something a semi decent AI should be able to produce (?).
I would think, if you are going to draw conclusions based on other studies that spending a long time researching, communicating, and understaning each one should be required
I presume it happens because meta studies are far cheaper , far faster, and allows publishing more studies?
Cheaper means they dont need a lab, Dont need subjects, humans, or animals and can be done with less people
The misaligned incentives to publish frequently to have a nice-looking list of articles to show when you next apply for a grant means there's tons of flimsy research that goes unquestioned. It's also fairly attractive to jump on specific bandwagons and publish noise just to get your name out there. A lot of these meta-studies are looking inward, at the field itself and what is currently accepted, and finding that a fair bit of it is of very poor quality, if not straight-up nonsense.
I think, overall, it's a good thing. Research should not be focused exclusively on new knowledge. We should also be validating what others put out there, to make sure it's worth listening to.