[dhimmel]

At some level, any system for evaluating research will have to rely on peer assessment. And some amount of groupthink is inevitable with peer assessment.

But the ResearchHub model of open collaborative assessment could have provided more incentives and visibility for research that deviated from the beta amyloid hypothesis.

It sounds like gatekeepers were a large problem here... i.e. peer reviewers for journals or grants that were insistent on beta amyloid. Disentangling dissemination from assessment (as preprints are doing) will help bring contrary findings to the light.

We also need to make all assessment public. Rather than basing the validity of a study on a few anonymous unpublished reviews, let anyone provide feedback and increase the sample size and diversity of assessment. Finally, add some incentives for contrarians who advance unpopular hypotheses that time proves correct.

Anyways, lot's of thoughts, but I agree a radical shift in how scientists communicate could help get to the root of the hivemind described in the article and by @cockatiel_day.