Bypass and hyperbole in soil research: A personal view on plausible causes and possible remedies

Abstract

The literature of the past couple of decades, related to soils, contains many instances of bypass, that is, the deliberate avoidance of part of the older literature in spite of its direct relevance to the topics being covered, and hyperbole, that is, exaggerated claims that are not supported either by existing knowledge or by experimental observations. Regardless of one's epistemological perspective, it would seem self‐evident that both of these practices are bound to be detrimental in the long term to the pursuit of scientific research, whose best chances of success are when one stands on the shoulders of those who preceded us, and when we present accurately the true extent of progress that is achieved. In the present opinion piece, I try to present my perspective on what may have encouraged researchers working on soils to resort to bypass or hyperbole. The premise of this piece is that only if one has some idea, as personal and hence subjective as it may be, of the roots of an ailment, can one hope to ever find a cure. Different avenues that could be pursued by institutions as well as individuals (even at the onset of their careers) to curb these worrisome practices are outlined. Highlights A broken publication and reward system may explain the extent of bypass and hyperbole in science. An analysis is provided of specific factors that encourage bypass and hyperbole in soil research. Several possible remedies are discussed, at individual and institutional levels.

Bypass and hyperbole in soil research: Worrisome practices critically reviewed through examples

“…Yet, I am convinced that there are very good reasons to be optimistic, and to believe that the days of unbridled publishing and of the egregiously misleading h ‐index are counted. In the Invited Opinion Article accompanying this Russell Review (Baveye, 2020), I have tried to outline some of the key reasons for this optimism, and several (but by no means all) of the ways that individual soil researchers, even at the onset of their careers, could profoundly influence the system and make the public at large more conscious of the importance of soils. To catalyse these efforts, I believe that a reflection by members of our discipline is essential, along the lines of the debate that was initiated almost 15 years ago, after it became clear that soil science graduate programmes in many countries were heading straight toward oblivion (Baveye et al, 2016; Baveye, Camargo, & Poss, 2010).…”

“…I am convinced that the rat race that scientific research has unfortunately become is soon going to be a thing of the past, for various reasons that I attempt to explain. To pave the way toward this bright future, this review and the companion opinion piece (Baveye, 2020), are meant to stimulate a hopefully healthy debate, which will eventually ensure that the research on soils gets on as strong a footing as possible, so that we are in the best position to address the many soil‐related problems with which humanity is currently confronted.…”

“…To make the matter as concrete as possible, I will review a number of examples, successively of bypass and hyperbole, taken from the recent research on soils, both inside and outside of soil science. In a complementary Invited Opinion Article (Baveye, 2020), I offer a personal perspective on the general conditions under which the research on soils is taking place, and which may explain to some extent why researchers feel compelled to ignore potentially embarrassing evidence or inflate the import of their work to make it more appealing. I also suggest various measures that could be taken to curb some of the bypass and hyperbole of the soil-related literature in years to come.…”

The ‘thanato-resistome’ - The funeral industry as a potential reservoir of antibiotic resistance: Early insights and perspectives

“…In environmental sciences and other disciplines, the decision to investigate particular environmental phenomena, in this case, antibiotic resistance in the funeral industry, is based on whether such phenomena have been widely investigated in earlier studies. This is referred to as the ‘Matthew’ or ‘bandwagon’ effect, an emerging phenomenon in research ( Daughton, 2014 ; Baveye, 2020a , Baveye, 2020b ). The bandwagon effect implies that trending research areas tend to be over-subscribed, while other equally relevant topics are neglected.…”

“…The bandwagon effect implies that trending research areas tend to be over-subscribed, while other equally relevant topics are neglected. The ‘bandwagon/Matthew effect’ may unduly over-estimate or inflate the significance of certain topics in a field, thereby creating a ‘hyperbole’ ( Baveye, 2020a , Baveye, 2020b ). The potential causes, detrimental effects of the ‘bandwagon’ and ‘hyperbole’ phenomena on research, and the need to overcome them have been discussed ( Baveye, 2020a , Baveye, 2020b ).…”