• Please remember: Pray for Ukraine in the Prayer forum; Share news in the Christian News section; Discuss religious implications in FFA: Religious Topics; Discuss political implications in Politics (and if you don't have access, PM me) Thank you! + Fr. George, Forum Administrator

Scientists don't read even the titles of the papers they cite

Status
Not open for further replies.

Simkins

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
1,113
Reaction score
19
Points
38
Faith
Radio Gnostic
Jurisdiction
Pleroma
From a research article:

Biologically speaking, Heydari et al. (2008) observed the most common biological characteristics of serial killers and noted that they have distinctive features like; face asymmetry, irregular ears sizes, either standing out or very small, irregular nose shape, and protruding lips.
And the reference is:

Heydari, E., Arzani, N., & Hassanzadeh, J. (2008). Mantle plume: the invisible serial killer— application to the Permian–Triassic boundary mass extinction. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 264(1), 147-162.
http://reverent.org/a_killer_reference/
 

Opus118

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
4,509
Reaction score
217
Points
63
Age
70
Location
Oceanside, California
Simkins said:
From a research article:

Biologically speaking, Heydari et al. (2008) observed the most common biological characteristics of serial killers and noted that they have distinctive features like; face asymmetry, irregular ears sizes, either standing out or very small, irregular nose shape, and protruding lips.
And the reference is:

Heydari, E., Arzani, N., & Hassanzadeh, J. (2008). Mantle plume: the invisible serial killer— application to the Permian–Triassic boundary mass extinction. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 264(1), 147-162.
http://reverent.org/a_killer_reference/
This is what happens when someone else types up your references for you in the first instance, you write Heydari (2008) and this is what you get. Citing the original error however is inexcusable.
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
10
Points
0
Age
36
Faith
Evangelical by default
Jurisdiction
Spiritually homeless
There was actually a Heydari who wrote about geology (using a "killer" metaphor) and one who wrote about serial killers in the same year?

Wow, that's almost a "Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy and Kennedy had a secretary named Lincoln" level coincidence.
 

Simkins

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
1,113
Reaction score
19
Points
38
Faith
Radio Gnostic
Jurisdiction
Pleroma
Volnutt said:
There was actually a Heydari who wrote about geology (using a "killer" metaphor) and one who wrote about serial killers in the same year?
Can't find one.

Volnutt said:
Wow, that's almost a "Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy and Kennedy had a secretary named Lincoln" level coincidence.
Similarly non-existent
It used to be said that Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy, and Kennedy had a secretary named Lincoln, but, in fact, Lincoln did not have a secretary named Kennedy. His secretaries were John Hay and John G. Nicolay.
https://www.quora.com/How-did-Abraham-Lincoln-and-John-F-Kennedy-compare-and-contrast
 

Opus118

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
4,509
Reaction score
217
Points
63
Age
70
Location
Oceanside, California
Simkins said:
Volnutt said:
There was actually a Heydari who wrote about geology (using a "killer" metaphor) and one who wrote about serial killers in the same year?
Can't find one.
I couldn't as well, although there are candidate Heydari's who could have written a paper like this. I suspect the paper may be contained in a monograph that includes papers presented at a meeting. These are often not found in Google Scholar or Google Books. I tried to find an email address for the Chinese co-authors with the false reference, but I have had no luck. Emailing is the best solution.
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
10
Points
0
Age
36
Faith
Evangelical by default
Jurisdiction
Spiritually homeless
Simkins said:
Volnutt said:
There was actually a Heydari who wrote about geology (using a "killer" metaphor) and one who wrote about serial killers in the same year?
Can't find one.

Volnutt said:
Wow, that's almost a "Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy and Kennedy had a secretary named Lincoln" level coincidence.
Similarly non-existent
It used to be said that Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy, and Kennedy had a secretary named Lincoln, but, in fact, Lincoln did not have a secretary named Kennedy. His secretaries were John Hay and John G. Nicolay.
https://www.quora.com/How-did-Abraham-Lincoln-and-John-F-Kennedy-compare-and-contrast
Oh, I didn't know that. Thanks.
 

Simkins

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
1,113
Reaction score
19
Points
38
Faith
Radio Gnostic
Jurisdiction
Pleroma
Opus118 said:
I tried to find an email address for the Chinese co-authors with the false reference, but I have had no luck. Emailing is the best solution.
The emails of the Koreans are in their other papers. I wrote to one of them ten days ago and did not get a reply.
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
10
Points
0
Age
36
Faith
Evangelical by default
Jurisdiction
Spiritually homeless
Then isn't the title of this thread a bit of an exercise in jumping to conclusions (to say nothing of being a bit of an over-generalization from one example)?
 

Simkins

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
1,113
Reaction score
19
Points
38
Faith
Radio Gnostic
Jurisdiction
Pleroma
Volnutt said:
Then isn't the title of this thread a bit of an exercise in jumping to conclusions (to say nothing of being a bit of an over-generalization from one example)?
Where do you see the over-generalization?
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
10
Points
0
Age
36
Faith
Evangelical by default
Jurisdiction
Spiritually homeless
Simkins said:
Volnutt said:
Then isn't the title of this thread a bit of an exercise in jumping to conclusions (to say nothing of being a bit of an over-generalization from one example)?
Where do you see the over-generalization?
To put it succinctly, #notallscientists
 

Sharbel

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 31, 2017
Messages
1,601
Reaction score
4
Points
38
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Greek
Forum users just read the titles of the posts they comment in.

:laugh:
 

Simkins

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
1,113
Reaction score
19
Points
38
Faith
Radio Gnostic
Jurisdiction
Pleroma
Volnutt said:
To put it succinctly, #notallscientists
The title does not say "all scientists."
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
10
Points
0
Age
36
Faith
Evangelical by default
Jurisdiction
Spiritually homeless
Simkins said:
Volnutt said:
To put it succinctly, #notallscientists
The title does not say "all scientists."
I know, but it seems to imply "scientists in general."
 

Simkins

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
1,113
Reaction score
19
Points
38
Faith
Radio Gnostic
Jurisdiction
Pleroma
Volnutt said:
I know, but it seems to imply "scientists in general."
I am not responsible for what seems to you.

It is hard to tell what part of the scientists does not read the titles. However about 80% do not read the papers while copying citations from the lists of references used in other papers.
 

Asteriktos

Strategos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
40,135
Reaction score
613
Points
113
Faith
-
Jurisdiction
-
I was going to post something snarky, but English obviously isn't your first language, and it's natural to get defensive when you're shown to have mucked things up, so I'll just leave it at: if you care at all about the things you seem to care about, you'd do well to reconsider what people are telling you on this (and in the past, other) threads.
 

Simkins

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
1,113
Reaction score
19
Points
38
Faith
Radio Gnostic
Jurisdiction
Pleroma
Asteriktos said:
I was going to post something snarky, but English obviously isn't your first language, and it's natural to get defensive when you're shown to have mucked things up, so I'll just leave it at: if you care at all about the things you seem to care about, you'd do well to reconsider what people are telling you on this (and in the past, other) threads.
Thank you for your gifts of wisdom, Master!
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
10
Points
0
Age
36
Faith
Evangelical by default
Jurisdiction
Spiritually homeless
Simkins said:
Volnutt said:
I know, but it seems to imply "scientists in general."
I am not responsible for what seems to you.

It is hard to tell what part of the scientists does not read the titles. However about 80% do not read the papers while copying citations from the lists of references used in other papers.
Still, it seems like a slightly different error to not even reading titles. But maybe I'm just nitpicking.
 

Simkins

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
1,113
Reaction score
19
Points
38
Faith
Radio Gnostic
Jurisdiction
Pleroma
Volnutt said:
Still, it seems like a slightly different error to not even reading titles. But maybe I'm just nitpicking.
You are not picking anything, just blah-blah-blah.

Which is a pity since some of your earlier posts had been very useful:

Volnutt said:
I. A. Richards kicked off Formalist literary criticism in the 20s at Cambridge with just such an observation (he found that students consistently rated unattributed lines of poetry as being lower in quality than they did the same poetry properly attributed to its famous author).
 

WPM

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 6, 2012
Messages
7,775
Reaction score
14
Points
0
Age
39
Faith
Ethiopian Jew
Depends on what kind or type of Scientist you are.
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
10
Points
0
Age
36
Faith
Evangelical by default
Jurisdiction
Spiritually homeless
Simkins said:
Volnutt said:
Still, it seems like a slightly different error to not even reading titles. But maybe I'm just nitpicking.
You are not picking anything, just blah-blah-blah.

Which is a pity since some of your earlier posts had been very useful:

Volnutt said:
I. A. Richards kicked off Formalist literary criticism in the 20s at Cambridge with just such an observation (he found that students consistently rated unattributed lines of poetry as being lower in quality than they did the same poetry properly attributed to its famous author).
Oh cool, I get to be Mor Ephrem now, yay!

Erhem....


Simkins said:
Thank you for your gifts of wisdom, Master!
 

Simkins

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
1,113
Reaction score
19
Points
38
Faith
Radio Gnostic
Jurisdiction
Pleroma
WPM said:
Depends on what kind or type of Scientist you are.
Pretty useless unless you specify the relevant classes and types of scientists.
 

Opus118

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
4,509
Reaction score
217
Points
63
Age
70
Location
Oceanside, California
Simkins said:
WPM said:
Depends on what kind or type of Scientist you are.
Pretty useless unless you specify the relevant classes and types of scientists.
Give him credit Simkins. Two ambiguities in this thread does make a right.

On a personal note, I do not pay attention to paper titles, they are often obscure or hype. I remember papers by first author and/or last (the senior) author and year.

I can go on as to why someone might quote a paper that they did not read or did read but not remember the details, but I am guessing no one would be interested. It is not uncommon because it can save you grief during the peer review process.

 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
10
Points
0
Age
36
Faith
Evangelical by default
Jurisdiction
Spiritually homeless
Opus118 said:
Simkins said:
WPM said:
Depends on what kind or type of Scientist you are.
Pretty useless unless you specify the relevant classes and types of scientists.
Give him credit Simkins. Two ambiguities in this thread does make a right.

On a personal note, I do not pay attention to paper titles, they are often obscure or hype. I remember papers by first author and/or last (the senior) author and year.

I can go on as to why someone might quote a paper that they did not read or did read but not remember the details, but I am guessing no one would be interested. It is not uncommon because it can save you grief during the peer review process.
I would be kind of interested.
 

Simkins

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
1,113
Reaction score
19
Points
38
Faith
Radio Gnostic
Jurisdiction
Pleroma
Opus118 said:
Give him credit Simkins. Two ambiguities in this thread does make a right.
I don't see what for.  I give a credit to Spengler

But even in law the basis of determining the truth by a majority of texts is the
fact of the consensus of the spiritual elect, the ijma. This theory Islamic science
worked out to its logical conclusions. We seek to find the truth, each for
himself, by personal pondering, but the Arabian savant feels for and ascertains
the general conviction of his associates, which cannot err because the mind of
God and the mind of the community are the same. If consensus is found, truth is
established. Ijma is the key of all Early Christian, Jewish, and Persian
Councils, but it is the key, too, of the famous Law of Citations of Valentinian III,
which the law-men have universally ridiculed without in the
least understanding its spiritual foundations.

Opus118 said:
I can go on as to why someone might quote a paper that they did not read or did read but not remember the details, but I am guessing no one would be interested. It is not uncommon because it can save you grief during the peer review process.
A reviewer asked to cite his paper and you did without reading. This is what you are talking of so mysteriously?
 

Opus118

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
4,509
Reaction score
217
Points
63
Age
70
Location
Oceanside, California
Simkins said:
Opus118 said:
Give him credit Simkins. Two ambiguities in this thread does make a right.
I don't see what for.  I give a credit to Spengler

But even in law the basis of determining the truth by a majority of texts is the
fact of the consensus of the spiritual elect, the ijma. This theory Islamic science
worked out to its logical conclusions. We seek to find the truth, each for
himself, by personal pondering, but the Arabian savant feels for and ascertains
the general conviction of his associates, which cannot err because the mind of
God and the mind of the community are the same. If consensus is found, truth is
established. Ijma is the key of all Early Christian, Jewish, and Persian
Councils, but it is the key, too, of the famous Law of Citations of Valentinian III,
which the law-men have universally ridiculed without in the
least understanding its spiritual foundations.
What I was trying to convey is that the title of the thread is ambiguous in regards to interpretation. WPM's post are often ambiguous which make them enjoyable. Because of this, I thought it was fitting (right). You should appreciate it, as well.

I did not understand your citation and maybe that was your point. It did not seem entertaining enough to ponder it further.

Opus118 said:
I can go on as to why someone might quote a paper that they did not read or did read but not remember the details, but I am guessing no one would be interested. It is not uncommon because it can save you grief during the peer review process.
A reviewer asked to cite his paper and you did without reading. This is what you are talking of so mysteriously?
The first sentence is something I have never personally had to deal with. It was not what I was referring to. If you see a paper that is less than 6 pages long (excluding experimental figures and tables) with over 60 references (not uncommon), you can bet some or all of the authors have not read them all, they came out of a review paper. I personally make statements and cite the review along with the phrase "and references therein". Nevertheless, I am willing to cite a paper if its senior author is likely to be selected by the journal editor to review my paper even if I think it is flawed in some aspects. Unfortunately, some people take the absence of a direct citation as an affront.

I review a fair amount of papers each year, many not in my field which requires reading a lot of papers in order the review the papers. It is not uncommon to find incorrect citations due to the date being incorrect which leads to the citation being incorrect.

I have to go, maybe I will finish up later.

Hi Volnutt!

 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
10
Points
0
Age
36
Faith
Evangelical by default
Jurisdiction
Spiritually homeless

Simkins

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
1,113
Reaction score
19
Points
38
Faith
Radio Gnostic
Jurisdiction
Pleroma
Opus118 said:
I did not understand your citation and maybe that was your point. It did not seem entertaining enough to ponder it further.
Spengler described two kinds of scholars.

Opus118 said:
The first sentence is something I have never personally had to deal with.
"Thou shalt not bear false witness"
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
10
Points
0
Age
36
Faith
Evangelical by default
Jurisdiction
Spiritually homeless
If you're accusing Opus of lying, you'd better back it up.
 

Simkins

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
1,113
Reaction score
19
Points
38
Faith
Radio Gnostic
Jurisdiction
Pleroma
I merely quoted your scriptures.

It is hard to believe that Opus never got a referee report asking to add some citations. Since it is the most common demand. Of course, the referees are anonymous so you can't tell for sure that the referee demands citing their work. But one can't categorically state that one did not have to deal with it.
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
10
Points
0
Age
36
Faith
Evangelical by default
Jurisdiction
Spiritually homeless
Simkins said:
I merely quoted your scriptures.
Yes, but to what end? "Even the devil can cite Scripture for his purpose," after all.
 

Simkins

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
1,113
Reaction score
19
Points
38
Faith
Radio Gnostic
Jurisdiction
Pleroma
"Ich bin der Geist der stets verneint"
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
10
Points
0
Age
36
Faith
Evangelical by default
Jurisdiction
Spiritually homeless
Simkins said:
"Ich bin der Geist der stets verneint"
Yes, I'm sure you are, honey.
 

Simkins

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
1,113
Reaction score
19
Points
38
Faith
Radio Gnostic
Jurisdiction
Pleroma
Yes, pointing out that researchers  copy citations from the lists of references used in other papers is of the devil.
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
10
Points
0
Age
36
Faith
Evangelical by default
Jurisdiction
Spiritually homeless
Simkins said:
Yes, pointing out that researchers  copy citations from the lists of references used in other papers is of the devil.
I think they do it because they figure that if Jones has read and cited Smith, and they have read Jones, then they can trust Jones to properly represent Smith's salient points in what Jones talks about and thus they don't need to read Smith.

Naive? Maybe. Lazy? Probably. Dishonest and venal? I think that's going a little too far as a blanket statement.
 

Opus118

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
4,509
Reaction score
217
Points
63
Age
70
Location
Oceanside, California
Simkins said:
A reviewer asked to cite his paper and you did without reading.
Simkins said:
Opus118 said:
The first sentence is something I have never personally had to deal with.
"Thou shalt not bear false witness"
Simkins said:
It is hard to believe that Opus never got a referee report asking to add some citations. Since it is the most common demand. Of course, the referees are anonymous so you can't tell for sure that the referee demands citing their work. But one can't categorically state that one did not have to deal with it.
I appreciate the silliness of this conversation and in general terms there is some relevance to the issues you are bringing up, but your idealistic demands as to how things should be are both detrimental and impossible. I will not discuss this latter issue. It is too time consuming.

In  regard to me, I have never had to cite a reference due to a reviewer. Some background - I started research in my field as an undergraduate in 1973 and I read the relevant papers in the field which was not many. My first paper was in 1978. Due to the large increase in research in this area, this field subdivided into four subareas. I  participated in the inception of one of these subareas and continued research in the subarea that was the main focus of research prior to 1980. I continued to work on these two subareas until 2014, but followed (read the papers)  the other two continuously. Since 2014 I have been working on one of these latter subareas. I can remember most of the papers I have read prior to 1995, but my memory gets spotty as I get older and because the papers I have read are in the multiple 1000s (and this includes my own).

As a reviewer of 100s of papers, I have to read the comments of the other reviewers. On that basis, in my pre-2014 subarea, demands that a paper be cited is extremely rare. I have seen it in my current subarea but I would consider that very rare as well. A little bit more common is that a reviewer requests a reference if there is space (until the advent of online supplemental information in the past five years where you could shift Methods and some figures online - this was main determinant of what goes into the paper and a lot of data was not shown because of this).

Since I wrote the reviews for my subarea, perhaps requesting or demanding a citation would be a little awkward since I cited the review. Nevertheless, they are not as common as you think. I only demand a citation if their data conflicts with a prior paper which would need to be acknowledged in the Discussion section - but only when I consider the prior paper sound.

Volnutt said:
Simkins said:
Yes, pointing out that researchers  copy citations from the lists of references used in other papers is of the devil.
I think they do it because they figure that if Jones has read and cited Smith, and they have read Jones, then they can trust Jones to properly represent Smith's salient points in what Jones talks about and thus they don't need to read Smith.

Naive? Maybe. Lazy? Probably. Dishonest and venal? I think that's going a little too far as a blanket statement.
Citing a paper from a review is both common, and appropriate for acknowledging in your paper seminal papers that established a technique or particular research area.  For example, if you want to acknowledge Crick FH, Barnett L, Brenner S, Watts-Tobin RJ (1961) in regard to establishing the genetic code for some reason, there is no need to read the paper. If you are dating Sydney Brenner's grand-daughter, reading the paper might make sense.

Forgive me, if there are typos.
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
10
Points
0
Age
36
Faith
Evangelical by default
Jurisdiction
Spiritually homeless
Yeah, and I'm sure that the likes of Brenner and Crick are cited so often in other papers that everyone assumes their work is sound, too. Like you said, reading absolutely everything that might be relevant to one's research is probably not often possible these days. Scientists of all kinds likely just have to settle for hitting the highlights.
 

Simkins

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
1,113
Reaction score
19
Points
38
Faith
Radio Gnostic
Jurisdiction
Pleroma
Opus118 said:
I appreciate the silliness of this conversation and in general terms there is some relevance to the issues you are bringing up, but your idealistic demands as to how things should be are both detrimental and impossible. I will not discuss this latter issue. It is too time consuming.

In  regard to me, I have never had to cite a reference due to a reviewer. Some background - I started research in my field as an undergraduate in 1973 and I read the relevant papers in the field which was not many. My first paper was in 1978. Due to the large increase in research in this area, this field subdivided into four subareas. I  participated in the inception of one of these subareas and continued research in the subarea that was the main focus of research prior to 1980. I continued to work on these two subareas until 2014, but followed (read the papers)  the other two continuously. Since 2014 I have been working on one of these latter subareas. I can remember most of the papers I have read prior to 1995, but my memory gets spotty as I get older and because the papers I have read are in the multiple 1000s (and this includes my own).

As a reviewer of 100s of papers, I have to read the comments of the other reviewers. On that basis, in my pre-2014 subarea, demands that a paper be cited is extremely rare. I have seen it in my current subarea but I would consider that very rare as well. A little bit more common is that a reviewer requests a reference if there is space (until the advent of online supplemental information in the past five years where you could shift Methods and some figures online - this was main determinant of what goes into the paper and a lot of data was not shown because of this).

Since I wrote the reviews for my subarea, perhaps requesting or demanding a citation would be a little awkward since I cited the review. Nevertheless, they are not as common as you think. I only demand a citation if their data conflicts with a prior paper which would need to be acknowledged in the Discussion section - but only when I consider the prior paper sound.
If you are so educated and so wise why then this
Opus118 said:
I tried to find an email address for the Chinese co-authors with the false reference, but I have had no luck.
?
Even I with my feeble mind found them in a minute.

The referees reports they are like that



Scientific journals rejected published articles, resubmitted in disguise
 

Opus118

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
4,509
Reaction score
217
Points
63
Age
70
Location
Oceanside, California
Simkins said:
If you are so educated and so wise why then this
Opus118 said:
I tried to find an email address for the Chinese co-authors with the false reference, but I have had no luck.
?
Even I with my feeble mind found them in a minute.

The referees reports they are like that



Scientific journals rejected published articles, resubmitted in disguise
There is a trivial answer. After spending quite a bit of time determining that there was no simple answer available on the internet as to why the citation was chosen, I had little time finding the email address of the authors. I spent more than a minute so I am obviously not as fast as you. I went to their individual academic web pages to see if they were still active. Their email addresses on these pages should have been obvious, but it wasn't.

As to confusing China and Korea, I do not remember details after one day. The same may be be true for the paragraph above.

Best
Opus



 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top