If a problem is this widespread it makes me think there is a systematic problem here. I have a feeling it has to do to how difficult these papers can be to read. Would this be less of a problem if papers were written in a more engaging way, with better structure and wording?
"Studies that replicate are cited at the same rate as studies that do not." "I think the most plausible explanation is that scientists don't read the papers they cite."https://fantasticanachronism.com/2020/09/11/whats-wrong-with-social-science-and-how-to-fix-it/ …
-
-
-
This! Whenever there is a prevalent, ongoing surface issue, there is a problem w/ the underlying model. Funny though, as a lover of systems thinking, I think system thinking suffers from this too. Work is too academic & scholarly for mass adoption.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Scientists cite the papers of the reviewers they know will read it. It's suicide to not.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You have to cite the BS you're calling.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The only time I usually cite papers is in SBIR proposals for the NSF, and I usually already know what I'm writing and fill in the citations after. I can see this not working as well in fields where there isn't a legible mechanstic underpinning for the results.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
No way anyone replying in less than 5 minutes read the paper.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Well social science is social science. I would be curious to know your opinion on Entrepreneurship and Business Venturing academic journals with high (6+) impact factors. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Business_Venturing … Do you read them? Does anyone you know do?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Replication takes a lot more effort than reading. So I am not sure how its the most "plausible explanation". Most people who read, or even peer-review a paper don't have the time to try and reproduce it.
-
The point of his article is that many social science papers are so palpably bad that you can predict with a quick scan which are unlikely to be replicated.
- Show replies
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.