h/t @schuklenk for this.
Show this thread
Academic friends: No matter what your field, I cannot recommend highly enough that you read this paper. It's utterly astonishing. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0740624X17300473 …
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Astonishing as you say. Surely at least partly a consequence of defining research quality as impact (citations etc) rather than actual quality. But maybe more scary is what might be going on where poor quality is not quite so blatant. /2
-
Quite. I'm not sure how one'd solve the problem, save for journals employing professional fact-checkers - but that would be damaging to the idea of academic integrity, and the valuable assumption that we're acting in good faith. It'd also be expensive, and frankly impossible.
-
I don't work as an academic myself so I don't have to deal with the tedious business of reviewing and all that, but surely reviewers ought at least to check 3 or 4 of the references and take a pretty strict view of what is OK?
-
We get no pay for reviewing, and no credit save inclusion in a list of reviewers once a year; it comes on top of our regular jobs, in which we already work evenings and weekends. We'll generally know if something doesn't smell right, but the whole system is built on trust. (1/2)
-
Checking references - or more than one or two - is likely to be supererogatory. That's part of why we get so angry about people who play the system: it delegitimises the whole academic enterprise.
-
with you there for sure
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
the authors response is awful. Completely ignores the criticisms.
-
Yep: but it makes me wonder what their backstory is. What kind of pressure are they under, and from where? It's so blatant, after all...
-
publish or perish - or, “publish or impoverish”, in contexts where graduation, recruitment, promotion, & annual bonuses are linked simply to the quantity of articles published, with no consideration of genuine quality of the research
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Saying this without any idea of the reputation of the journal that the original article was published in, or how widely cited the original article has been, but: is this like shooting fish in a barrel?
-
No idea. Given the number of citations, my hunch is that it's a reasonably well-regarded journal. (I don't know what the norm is for the field, though. I've only got bioethics' low citation rates for reference.)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It makes me giggle that it took 8 years to come back at them
-
Naaaaah. There's no way that a person can keep up with everything that's published. That one might only read a paper - even a widely-cited one - a decade after it's published is no biggie as far as I can see.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Splendid
-
The bit about it being top ranked and uncritically cited
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
At first I was like 'why am I reading this'. Gambia and e-government?? Then...wow. Incredible.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
There's utter garbage written about vaccines:https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/aluminum-toxicity-vaccines-bad-science/ …
-
This is brilliant. Anti-vaxx material forensically refuted, with bonus of endnote that explains different UK/US usage of the word 'turnover'
-
Why thank you! I wrote it. Cheers, Rosewind
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.