-
-
Replying to @seankross @mgymrek
The problem is that to “star” or “like” something no effort has to be made besides pressing a button. Whereas to cite something one had to read, understand and integrate it with his or her own research. More action breeds more acclaim.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
the amount of citations I see where they have clearly read an abstract and nothing more.pic.twitter.com/seQRxx1BGm
1 reply 0 retweets 27 likes -
Replying to @Dale_Masch @samzuckerman and
to be fair, those using a software library or framework only know of the corresponding API and nothing more. And when they run into problems, they still don't check the code and go directly to stackoverflow At least, paper abstracts, if properly written, tell the whole story :)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @jjgomezs @Dale_Masch and
Also, publishing a paper takes money, lots of time and effort. Afterwards, you need them being approved by some guys you probably don't know and may as well reject it. Respect.pic.twitter.com/8tiuEEKEhL
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
The fact that GitHub stars are not the appropriate metric doesn't invalidate the conclusion in the OP.
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.