we need journals to start indicating which articles have been rendered superfluous by more up-to-date research
-
-
is it a judgment call? yes, esp in fuzzier cases. but it needs to be done and iiuc, you mean publishing “notes” on article in same journal, which sometimes marked as update, but this unhelpful - in ideal case 1 new article makes several older ones redundant at once
-
Yes, that's what I mean. I'll often hear other graduate students propose a correction to an article and be rebuffed with "that'd make a good note, but don't waste your time on that."
-
hopefully some ppl will find a way to “monetize it” (“tenurize”?) the way the princeton psych kids made their careers off the replication crisis
-
like, a browser app that auto-overlays newer work over superceded articles
-
Someone who's better at networks and programming than I should make one that, upon scrolling over a paper title/link, lists the top five most cited papers that directly cite the paper in question. That'd at least give context. esp. since most soc science papers don't have 5 cites
-
i agree that would be a relatively easy first step but at the end of the day you rly need authoritative judgment about whether X is worth reading / whether Y is still an open question or not
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Sure, if the new article is also in their journal. Otherwise doing so would stifle their own citation rate. Reputation could matter enough for top journals to follow through on an update, but I wouldn't expect it from low ranking journals, which is where the problem tends to be.
-
yes i understand it’s not in their (short term) interests low-ranking journals are a vile cesspool and if academics were punished for publishing in them that would be a good first step
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.