"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/ …
-
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.
-
-
Yeah, I found that a lot while writing my master thesis. People seem to rarely read the source material but instead read papers which summarize fields extensively. Then they „copy“ the summary often with all its mistakes...
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.