Nothing, NOTHING, in research raises my blood pressure like the "teach the controversy" approach to theory and citations.https://twitter.com/juliagalef/status/1045039424038350848 …
-
-
Yeah, it's very annoying. Usually though, it's because Reviewer 1 is like, "cite my research" and I have to compromise to get published, tbh.
-
It's often very disadvantageous for the life of your paper to go to the mattresses. Even with facts.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Some similarity with the macroeconomic concept of banks that are ‘Too big to fail’. Poor studies, errant conclusions, propped up again and again because without them researchers would be up a creek. Too foundational to work to challenge.
-
Isn't that the most poisonous idea, 'too big to fail'. Applies to the literal AND contextual research area. I always think of forensic science during the discussion of this issue, and the evidence base for polygraphs and fingerprints.
-
Yeah it’s a real problem and I don’t intend to defend it. Shit ideas never really go away anyway, they just go somewhere else. Freudian psychoanalytic theory, for example. Still journals dedicated to it.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You are supposed to call it "backlash" and not cite it.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Most don't even cite it! https://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b2680 … Hopefully we can help highlight critical studies and make it harder for authors to brush aside/ignore:https://twitter.com/sciteai/status/1055927904717160449 …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
"Changing one's mind is for losers." That might be one reason why the Monty Hall problem is so hard.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.