SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
This latest result is "pretty damning," says University of Maryland, College Park, cognitive scientist Michael Dougherty, who was not involved with the research. "Citation counts have long been treated as a proxy for research quality," he says, so the finding that less reliable research is cited more points to a "fundamental problem" with how such work is evaluated.
[...] University of California, San Diego, economists Marta Serra-Garcia and Uri Gneezy were interested in whether catchy research ideas would get more attention than mundane ones, even if they were less likely to be true. So they gathered data on 80 papers from three different projects that had tried to replicate important social science findings, with varying levels of success.
Citation counts on Google Scholar were significantly higher for the papers that failed to replicate, they report today in Science Advances, with an average boost of 16 extra citations per year. That's a big number, Serra-Garcia and Gneezy say—papers in high-impact journals in the same time period amassed a total of about 40 citations per year on average.
And when the researchers examined citations in papers published after the landmark replication projects, they found that the papers rarely acknowledged the failure to replicate, mentioning it only 12% of the time.
Well, nobody likes a Debbie Downer, do they?
Journal Reference:
Marta Serra-Garcia, Uri Gneezy. Nonreplicable publications are cited more than replicable ones [open], Science Advances (DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.abd1705)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Socrastotle on Thursday July 01 2021, @05:33PM
No, he said that disinfectant has the ability to completely destroy the virus in the realm of 1 minute and it'd be interesting to see if doctors could find a way to inject it or somehow use it for a "cleaning."
Consider, for instance, antibiotics. Part of the reason the uptake was so slow (it took more than a decade) on penicillin, the first antibiotic, is because it's extracted directly from the penicillium mold. You know that bluish green fungus that forms of rotting food? That is (or at least may contain) penicillium molds, which can be harmful to you in a number of ways if directly exposed. The idea of isolating that and then injecting it just because it seemed to destroy some bacteria in a petri dish is, to say the least, counter-intuitive, and so the discoverer had substantial difficulty simply getting people to accept what he claimed - which would ultimately revolutionize healthcare and the entire world.
It's like saying in that case that Fleming was suggesting people toss some mold into a blender and inject. That's just being intentionally obtuse, at best - and, again, rather emphasizing the above posters points.