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

[Simkins]

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.

May be such wise and educated scientist like yourself can answer one simple question that I have: how many quarks can sit on the tip of a needle?

 

[Volnutt]

Some multiple of three, I imagine...

But seriously, what's your point? I don't see how I'm hairsplitting there.

 

[Simkins]

I don't see how I'm hairsplitting there.

It's more like counting minus lynxes. Another distinguished scientist suggested that Saint Nicholas of the Cats killed six thousand lynxes, which is more than their total number in the forest. So their number in  Białowieża now must be negative. So go there and count the minus lynxes.

 

[Volnutt]

I don't see how I'm hairsplitting there.

It's more like counting minus lynxes. Another distinguished scientist suggested that Saint Nicholas of the Cats killed six thousand lynxes, which is more than their total number in the forest. So their number in  Białowieża now must be negative. So go there and count the minus lynxes.

Well alright then...

 

[Simkins]

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.

Your citations are recommended additional reading list for the readers of your paper. Why would you recommend to read a paper you did not read yourself?

 

[Volnutt]

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.

Your citations are recommended additional reading list for the readers of your paper. Why would you recommend to read a paper you did not read yourself?

If it's a paper or author preceded by his reputation in the field? I don't think Opus has to worry that he'll accidentally direct people to a Flat-Earth paper or something.

 

[Simkins]

If it's a paper or author preceded by his reputation in the field? I don't think Opus has to worry that he'll accidentally direct people to a Flat-Earth paper or something.

You don not include  a paper in the list of consulted sources because it is correct, but because you read it.
Reputation of the scholars is based on the number of citations to their papers. So this is a self-supporting process.

Ancient Greek did know that the Earth is round because  ships disappeared  from view when departed far enough from the shore. Even estimated its radius. Nobody doubts it since Magellan. Why would you mention it at all?

 

[Volnutt]

If it's a paper or author preceded by his reputation in the field? I don't think Opus has to worry that he'll accidentally direct people to a Flat-Earth paper or something.

You don not include  a paper in the list of consulted sources because it is correct, but because you read it.
Reputation of the scholars is based on the number of citations to their papers. So this is a self-supporting process.

Or because you have reason to believe that it's a useful source, even if you didn't have time to read it yourself.

Op cit. Opus.

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.

Ancient Greek did know that the Earth is round because  ships disappeared  from view when departed far enough from the shore. Even estimated its radius. Nobody doubts it since Magellan. Why would you mention it at all?

That's what caused a lot of Greeks to suspect that the Earth is round. It took Archimedes and Eratosthenes to prove it mathematically, though.

But I was just using "flat earth" as a metonym for obvious krank.

 

[Simkins]

Or because you have reason to believe that it's a useful source, even if you didn't have time to read it yourself.

It is a bit strange to say "I did not read it myself but recommend that you read it."
Besides it is not just few unread citations in scientific literature, but 80%.

That's what caused a lot of Greeks to suspect that the Earth is round. It took Archimedes and Eratosthenes to prove it mathematically, though.

But I was just using "flat earth" as a metonym for obvious krank.

But how could such thing come up? Who could inject it in the information space? Postmodernists, pranksters, experimenters studying the propagation of fads?
Or some sinister people who wish to discredit some right things by associating them with flat Earth?

 

[Volnutt]

Or because you have reason to believe that it's a useful source, even if you didn't have time to read it yourself.

It is a bit strange to say "I did not read it myself but recommend that you read it."

People get busy. There's not enough hours in the day to everything we want to do, or even everything we feel like we need to do.

Besides it is not just few unread citations in scientific literature, but 80%.

I don't deny that a lot of scientists have gotten lazy. I just don't think that every one of those instances can be chalked up to laziness.

That's what caused a lot of Greeks to suspect that the Earth is round. It took Archimedes and Eratosthenes to prove it mathematically, though.

But I was just using "flat earth" as a metonym for obvious krank.

But how could such thing come up? Who could inject it in the information space? Postmodernists, pranksters, experimenters studying the propagation of fads?

Like I said, I wasn't really talking about actual flat earthers.

Or some sinister people who wish to discredit some right things by associating them with flat Earth?

Are you referring to me?

 

[Simkins]

People get busy. There's not enough hours in the day to everything we want to do, or even everything we feel like we need to do.

This is not a reason to pretend that you have read the papers you actually haven't read.

I don't deny that a lot of scientists have gotten lazy. I just don't think that every one of those instances can be chalked up to laziness.

I agree. The main reason is that they do not understand what they are doing.

But I was just using "flat earth" as a metonym for obvious krank.

And I was suggesting that flat earthers do not exist.

Are you referring to me?

No. I think you just copied the meme from somebody. Just like that researcher had copied the citation.

 

[Volnutt]

People get busy. There's not enough hours in the day to everything we want to do, or even everything we feel like we need to do.

This is not a reason to pretend that you have read the papers you actually haven't read.

I don't think citing necessarily has to imply that you've read it, just that you're aware it exists.

But I was just using "flat earth" as a metonym for obvious krank.

And I was suggesting that flat earthers do not exist.

Then you have far too little faith in the reaches of human stupidity.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/22/self-taught-rocket-scientist-plans-launch-to-test-flat-earth-theory
https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm
https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2017/10/28/what-does-take-believe-world-flat/0gdgl2JMPhBpgJK5mGXPkI/story.html
http://ifers.123.st/f1-the-international-flat-earth-research-society

I mean, I guess they could all be trolling, but if there's anything I learned from watching the goings on surrounding 4Chan, it's easy for the long con to turn into something you believe in yourself. And if you have evidence that B.o.B. is lying about being a flat earther, it would be nice, if a tad belated, if you told Neil deGrasse Tyson about it.

 

[Simkins]

I don't think citing necessarily has to imply that you've read it, just that you're aware it exists.

Just like if something is newspaper does not imply it is true.

Then you have far too little faith in the reaches of human stupidity.

6000 lynxes killed by Santa Claus II is not the top?

I mean, I guess they could all be trolling, but if there's anything I learned from watching the goings on surrounding 4Chan, it's easy for the long con to turn into something you believe in yourself.

And many religious people do. They published a book in France that says that Rene Guenon was first Postmodernist.

 

[Simkins]

Then you have far too little faith in the reaches of human stupidity.

It could have been due to stupidity in ancient times since the proof required an understanding of geometry. Nowadays there are fotos. This one made by a Chinese spacecraft

You do not need any intellect to see that Earth is round. So if someone does not believe it - he does not trust the photo is genuine. So it is more like the second type of a reader as classified by one of the great thinkers of the 20th century (either Einstein or Hitler, I forgot which, but it is one of the two http://reverent.org/einstein_or_hitler.html )

Generally, readers of the Press can be classified into three groups:

First, those who believe everything they read;

Second, those who no longer believe anything;

Third, those who critically examine what they read and form their judgments accordingly.

Numerically, the first group is by far the strongest, being composed of the broad masses of the people. ... Under this category come all those who have not been born to think for themselves or who have not learnt to do so and who, partly through incompetence and partly through ignorance, believe everything that is set before them in print. ...

The second group is numerically smaller, being partly composed of those who were formerly in the first group and after a series of bitter disappointments are now prepared to believe nothing of what they see in print. ...

The third group is easily the smallest, being composed of real intellectuals whom natural aptitude and education have taught to think for themselves and who in all things try to form their own judgments, while at the same time carefully sifting what they read. ... In the majority of cases these readers have learnt to regard every journalist as fundamentally a rogue who sometimes speaks the truth. Most unfortunately, the value of these readers lies in their intelligence and not in their numerical strength, an unhappy state of affairs in a period where wisdom counts for nothing and majorities for everything.

I do not think that the second group of the readers is more stupid than the first.

 

[Hawkeye]

That Volnutt's perfectly reasonable off-hand remark seems to be too much for you only diminishes whatever point you're trying to make.

 

[Volnutt]

They all seem to believe that the photos are faked, we never went to the Moon, the Space Shuttles were fake, etc. Anti-vaxx, Pizzagate, Birtherism, the Magic Bullet, Sandy Hook Truth, FEMA camps, David Icke, 9/11 Truth, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion... none of it surprises me in this day and age.

Are there people who merely pretend to be flat-earthers? I don't doubt it, especially on the internet. But I also have no problem with the idea that there are genuine examples.

 

[Hawkeye]

Are there people who merely pretend to be flat-earthers? I don't doubt it, especially on the internet. But I also have no problem with the idea that there are genuine examples.

For what it's worth, my great-grandfather believes in a flat Earth, or so I've been told. Of course, he's a village man with a peasant's mind who just happened to be plenty successful as a fisherman. I doubt he'd have an interest in any theories; the Earth might as well be flat to him. He's likely to have never so much as touched a proper computer.

 

[Volnutt]

Are there people who merely pretend to be flat-earthers? I don't doubt it, especially on the internet. But I also have no problem with the idea that there are genuine examples.

For what it's worth, my great-grandfather believes in a flat Earth, or so I've been told. Of course, he's a village man with a peasant's mind who just happened to be plenty successful as a fisherman. I doubt he'd have an interest in any theories; the Earth might as well be flat to him. He's likely to have never so much as touched a proper computer.

That's really interesting. I'm guessing he got away without having to deal with modern radar and GPS, etc. since it was mostly from after his heyday?

I remember watching a documentary about the Lykov family (the Old Believers who fled into the Siberian wilderness during WWII only to be stumbled upon by Russian scientists in the 80s). They could accept the existence of any technology they were told about, though not wishing to partake themselves. And as I recall the old father Karp was very interested in asking about science and engineering, but he just couldn't accept the idea that man had walked on the Moon no matter how hard people tried to convince him otherwise. I'm guessing he had no issue with a round earth or with Heliocentrism since they never mentioned either, or maybe it didn't come up in conversation. I mean, I guess Heliocentrism wouldn't have been controversial in 17th Century Russia even if it hadn't penetrated down to the village level in a time and place with minimal universal education.

I guess what I mean to say is, I would have assumed that an Old Believer would be more inclined towards Geocentrism if he were to embrace crankery. Robert Sungenis immediately springs to mind as a very traditionalist religious Geocentrist (as I recall, oc.net had an Old Believer flat earther named Dionysii, but he claimed to be a bourgeois American convert).

 

[Opus118]

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.

Your citations are recommended additional reading list for the readers of your paper. Why would you recommend to read a paper you did not read yourself?

Let me give you a "real" example of a typical citation that most researchers have not read. You should also keep in mind that only a few journals are geared to a more general scientific readership (Science and Nature are examples), most journals are geared to specific research areas with a knowledgeable readership.

Now the example:
Laemmli, U.K. 1970, Nature 227: 680. Cleavage of structural proteins during the assembly of the head of bacteriophage T4.

This is the second most cited paper among all off the scientific journals with 256,965 citations according to Google Scholar, 242,361 citations according to Web of Science (W.E.S.; formerly Citation Index). Not a lot of labs worked on the bacteriophage T4 head proteins. The paper is cited because it described a new (at the time) polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis system for resolving proteins by size. The method is in most individual lab manuals and methods books. The paper is cited because there are other gel electrophoresis systems commonly in use. Citing Laemmli (1970) tells the reader which one.

The most cited paper is Lowry et al., 1951 with 333,553 W.E.S. citations, the third most is Bradford, 1976 with 195,797 W.E.S. citations. Both of these papers deal with determining protein concentrations. There are different methods for doing this. Lowry was the most popular until Bradford came along. The Bradford citations increased by about 30,000 within the last four years.

This should also explain why I cannot read every paper within my larger area of expertise (any paper using these techniques).

 

[Simkins]

They all seem to believe that the photos are faked, we never went to the Moon, the Space Shuttles were fake, etc. Anti-vaxx, Pizzagate, Birtherism, the Magic Bullet, Sandy Hook Truth, FEMA camps, David Icke, 9/11 Truth, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion... none of it surprises me in this day and age.

Are there people who merely pretend to be flat-earthers? I don't doubt it, especially on the internet. But I also have no problem with the idea that there are genuine examples.

Here we go. Why do you lump it all together? Yes, there are people who question the American manned Lunar mission. In particular I heard them on the major Russian News Program "Postscriptum." They also proposed alternative versions of 9/11.

But I never heard someone questioning all of the space flights. That is Soviet, European, Indian, and Chinese. May be such people do exist but I don't think they are worthy of mentioning in major newspapers. The media pulls them out of disregard to associate them with people questioning American manned Lunar mission and discredit the latter by such association.

 

[Hawkeye]

Are there people who merely pretend to be flat-earthers? I don't doubt it, especially on the internet. But I also have no problem with the idea that there are genuine examples.

For what it's worth, my great-grandfather believes in a flat Earth, or so I've been told. Of course, he's a village man with a peasant's mind who just happened to be plenty successful as a fisherman. I doubt he'd have an interest in any theories; the Earth might as well be flat to him. He's likely to have never so much as touched a proper computer.

That's really interesting. I'm guessing he got away without having to deal with modern radar and GPS, etc. since it was mostly from after his heyday?

I remember watching a documentary about the Lykov family (the Old Believers who fled into the Siberian wilderness during WWII only to be stumbled upon by Russian scientists in the 80s). They could accept the existence of any technology they were told about, though not wishing to partake themselves. And as I recall the old father Karp was very interested in asking about science and engineering, but he just couldn't accept the idea that man had walked on the Moon no matter how hard people tried to convince him otherwise. I'm guessing he had no issue with a round earth or with Heliocentrism since they never mentioned either, or maybe it didn't come up in conversation. I mean, I guess Heliocentrism wouldn't have been controversial in 17th Century Russia even if it hadn't penetrated down to the village level in a time and place with minimal universal education.

I guess what I mean to say is, I would have assumed that an Old Believer would be more inclined towards Geocentrism if he were to embrace crankery. Robert Sungenis immediately springs to mind as a very traditionalist religious Geocentrist (as I recall, oc.net had an Old Believer flat earther named Dionysii, but he claimed to be a bourgeois American convert).

I don't know when modern radar and GPS was introduced onto private fishing vessels. I'm sure he must have had some experience with them towards the tail end of his active fishing period, though I imagine he left it to the younger generations. He's been coasting on other people fishing for him for the past few decades. As long as the fish is caught, I don't think he cares what the implications of the technology might be.

I've never spoken to him about any such topics but he'd probably balk at the Moon landing as well. He might very well be a geocentrist too, I don't know, but I have little doubt that there are people, primarily older, in my greater community who hold such views, whether its in a flat Earth, geocentrism, Young Earth creationism, or an incredulity that we've been on the Moon. None of these things, however, play any noticeable role in the life of my own village, for example. People are fairly content with modern science and don't particularly care what's being taught at the schools so long as kids aren't forced to attend on feast days.

I've never encountered an individual insistent on a particular theory in the way that Dionysii had been, or even all that many people who expressed such views, let alone bought into conspiracies. It just doesn't matter whether the Earth is round or not, or whether it circles the sun or the sun circles it, so long as the Earth functions normally.

 

[Volnutt]

Are there people who merely pretend to be flat-earthers? I don't doubt it, especially on the internet. But I also have no problem with the idea that there are genuine examples.

For what it's worth, my great-grandfather believes in a flat Earth, or so I've been told. Of course, he's a village man with a peasant's mind who just happened to be plenty successful as a fisherman. I doubt he'd have an interest in any theories; the Earth might as well be flat to him. He's likely to have never so much as touched a proper computer.

That's really interesting. I'm guessing he got away without having to deal with modern radar and GPS, etc. since it was mostly from after his heyday?

I remember watching a documentary about the Lykov family (the Old Believers who fled into the Siberian wilderness during WWII only to be stumbled upon by Russian scientists in the 80s). They could accept the existence of any technology they were told about, though not wishing to partake themselves. And as I recall the old father Karp was very interested in asking about science and engineering, but he just couldn't accept the idea that man had walked on the Moon no matter how hard people tried to convince him otherwise. I'm guessing he had no issue with a round earth or with Heliocentrism since they never mentioned either, or maybe it didn't come up in conversation. I mean, I guess Heliocentrism wouldn't have been controversial in 17th Century Russia even if it hadn't penetrated down to the village level in a time and place with minimal universal education.

I guess what I mean to say is, I would have assumed that an Old Believer would be more inclined towards Geocentrism if he were to embrace crankery. Robert Sungenis immediately springs to mind as a very traditionalist religious Geocentrist (as I recall, oc.net had an Old Believer flat earther named Dionysii, but he claimed to be a bourgeois American convert).

I don't know when modern radar and GPS was introduced onto private fishing vessels.

Early 60s for radar, early 80s for GPS. I suppose radar doesn't have a lot of cosmological implications, though. Interesting aside that I just found, they're now using GPS to monitor for illegal fishing https://www.vox.com/2016/9/16/12940708/global-fishing-watch

I'm sure he must have had some experience with them towards the tail end of his active fishing period, though I imagine he left it to the younger generations. He's been coasting on other people fishing for him for the past few decades. As long as the fish is caught, I don't think he cares what the implications of the technology might be.

Yeah.

I've never spoken to him about any such topics but he'd probably balk at the Moon landing as well. He might very well be a geocentrist too, I don't know, but I have little doubt that there are people, primarily older, in my greater community who hold such views, whether its in a flat Earth, geocentrism, Young Earth creationism, or an incredulity that we've been on the Moon. None of these things, however, play any noticeable role in the life of my own village, for example. People are fairly content with modern science and don't particularly care what's being taught at the schools so long as kids aren't forced to attend on feast days.

Yeah, makes sense to me that they wouldn't have a reason to care much if it doesn't impact their day to day lives. I think it was Sherri Shepherd on the View who was asked once if the earth was round and her response was something along the lines of "I don't care. Is it?"

I've never encountered an individual insistent on a particular theory in the way that Dionysii had been, or even all that many people who expressed such views, let alone bought into conspiracies. It just doesn't matter whether the Earth is round or not, or whether it circles the sun or the sun circles it, so long as the Earth functions normally.

Yeah, most people are a lot more casual than us internet pseudo-intellectuals lol.

 

[Volnutt]

They all seem to believe that the photos are faked, we never went to the Moon, the Space Shuttles were fake, etc. Anti-vaxx, Pizzagate, Birtherism, the Magic Bullet, Sandy Hook Truth, FEMA camps, David Icke, 9/11 Truth, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion... none of it surprises me in this day and age.

Are there people who merely pretend to be flat-earthers? I don't doubt it, especially on the internet. But I also have no problem with the idea that there are genuine examples.

Here we go. Why do you lump it all together? Yes, there are people who question the American manned Lunar mission. In particular I heard them on the major Russian News Program "Postscriptum." They also proposed alternative versions of 9/11.

But I never heard someone questioning all of the space flights. That is Soviet, European, Indian, and Chinese. May be such people do exist but I don't think they are worthy of mentioning in major newspapers. The media pulls them out of disregard to associate them with people questioning American manned Lunar mission and discredit the latter by such association.

Of course they would, especially if they also have a healthy dose of Bircher xenophobia. America is the last bastion against globalism, don't you know? There's a whole anti-authoritarian mindset that has no problem casting such wide aspersions. Their views might not make sense when one tries to break them down premise by premise, but the same can be said about all kinds of intellectual positions.

I tend to think that profiles of cranks in newspapers are more based on feeding the growing business of bourgeois "misery tourism" (just watch a Viceland documentary) than on any conscious intent towards impacting the surrounding discourse. We just love to gawk at the stupidity (or "color" if we're being nice) of the common folk from the comfort of our climate controlled cages.

 

[Iconodule]

Please, people of good will, let this thread die.

 

[Volnutt]

Please, people of good will, let this thread die.

I guess I'll leave that up to Opus, he's the one whose honor has been impugned.

 

[RaphaCam]

I like Opus.

 

[Volnutt]

I like Opus.

Much like Soylent Green, he's good people.

 

[Simkins]

I tend to think that profiles of cranks in newspapers are more based on feeding the growing business of bourgeois "misery tourism" (just watch a Viceland documentary) than on any conscious intent towards impacting the surrounding discourse. We just love to gawk at the stupidity (or "color" if we're being nice) of the common folk from the comfort of our climate controlled cages.

So you think the readers on the newspaper stories of flat earthers are like the dancing marathon spectators from the film "They shoot horses?" May be.

But at least in your case it did work out the way I said. Since you lumped together American manned Moon  landing skeptics with the flat earthers. And after that one does not feel the need to debunk the arguments of the former.

 

[Volnutt]

I tend to think that profiles of cranks in newspapers are more based on feeding the growing business of bourgeois "misery tourism" (just watch a Viceland documentary) than on any conscious intent towards impacting the surrounding discourse. We just love to gawk at the stupidity (or "color" if we're being nice) of the common folk from the comfort of our climate controlled cages.

So you think the readers on the newspaper stories of flat earthers are like the dancing marathon spectators from the film "They shoot horses?" May be.

My point is just that a lot of people like to watch car wrecks so it's only natural that an industry would spring up to provide images of such.

But at least in your case it did work out the way I said. Since you lumped together American manned Moon  landing skeptics with the flat earthers. And after that one does not feel the need to debunk the arguments of the former.

A is a subset of B. All modern flat earthers are likely space flight skeptics, but not all space flight skeptics are flat earthers. One can interact with the latter while ignoring the former.

 

[Simkins]

Let me give you a "real" example of a typical citation that most researchers have not read. You should also keep in mind that only a few journals are geared to a more general scientific readership (Science and Nature are examples), most journals are geared to specific research areas with a knowledgeable readership.

Now the example:
Laemmli, U.K. 1970, Nature 227: 680. Cleavage of structural proteins during the assembly of the head of bacteriophage T4.

This is the second most cited paper among all off the scientific journals with 256,965 citations according to Google Scholar, 242,361 citations according to Web of Science (W.E.S.; formerly Citation Index). Not a lot of labs worked on the bacteriophage T4 head proteins. The paper is cited because it described a new (at the time) polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis system for resolving proteins by size. The method is in most individual lab manuals and methods books. The paper is cited because there are other gel electrophoresis systems commonly in use. Citing Laemmli (1970) tells the reader which one.

The most cited paper is Lowry et al., 1951 with 333,553 W.E.S. citations, the third most is Bradford, 1976 with 195,797 W.E.S. citations. Both of these papers deal with determining protein concentrations. There are different methods for doing this. Lowry was the most popular until Bradford came along. The Bradford citations increased by about 30,000 within the last four years.

This should also explain why I cannot read every paper within my larger area of expertise (any paper using these techniques).

Very interesting. It is remarkable that the three most cited papers are only famous by being cited that much. This is a confirmation of the conclusion of the theory of citing: copied citations create renowned papers.

Why you cite the paper instead for the method book that you actually read?

Why they don't cite Watson & Creek each time they talk of DNA?

Why they don't cite Pavlov each time they speak of conditional reflexes?

 

[Volnutt]

Do you cite Cardano and Fermat and Pascal every time you talk about statistics?

 

[Opus118]

Let me give you a "real" example of a typical citation that most researchers have not read. You should also keep in mind that only a few journals are geared to a more general scientific readership (Science and Nature are examples), most journals are geared to specific research areas with a knowledgeable readership.

Now the example:
Laemmli, U.K. 1970, Nature 227: 680. Cleavage of structural proteins during the assembly of the head of bacteriophage T4.

This is the second most cited paper among all off the scientific journals with 256,965 citations according to Google Scholar, 242,361 citations according to Web of Science (W.E.S.; formerly Citation Index). Not a lot of labs worked on the bacteriophage T4 head proteins. The paper is cited because it described a new (at the time) polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis system for resolving proteins by size. The method is in most individual lab manuals and methods books. The paper is cited because there are other gel electrophoresis systems commonly in use. Citing Laemmli (1970) tells the reader which one.

The most cited paper is Lowry et al., 1951 with 333,553 W.E.S. citations, the third most is Bradford, 1976 with 195,797 W.E.S. citations. Both of these papers deal with determining protein concentrations. There are different methods for doing this. Lowry was the most popular until Bradford came along. The Bradford citations increased by about 30,000 within the last four years.

This should also explain why I cannot read every paper within my larger area of expertise (any paper using these techniques).

Very interesting. It is remarkable that the three most cited papers are only famous by being cited that much. This is a confirmation of the conclusion of the theory of citing: copied citations create renowned papers.

Why you cite the paper instead for the method book that you actually read?

Why they don't cite Watson & Creek each time they talk of DNA?

Why they don't cite Pavlov each time they speak of conditional reflexes?

Simple answers:  Laemmli's major contribution to science is of course his gel system, which had a great impact, much like PCR, but he also is well known for his contributions in nuclear organization. Methods books have more than one method for gel systems, such that citing it will take more space than citing the original article. It seems that you cannot grasp that there are space limitations for papers. 

There is no need to cite Watson and Crick, or Sydney Brenner, or Leslie Orgel, or Linus Pauling, or Marshall Nirenberg, etc. They are in undergraduate text books and the methods they used are outdated. Of course, as stated in a previous post there may be circumstances that might make citing and reading their papers (beyond a textbook) useful.

I have no reason to read the Pavlov papers. Have you? I am not knowledgeable about conditional reflexes so I cannot comment.

 

[Simkins]

Do you cite Cardano and Fermat and Pascal every time you talk about statistics?

It is impolite to answer a question with a question.

Opus while proving that he is not citing flat earth had proved that the highest cited scientists are average scientists. Not known anywhere close to the three which you mentioned.

Lowry's paper was published  before Watson-Creek's, so examples from the 17th century are irrelevant.

 

[Simkins]

Simple answers:  Laemmli's major contribution to science is of course his gel system, which had a great impact, much like PCR, but he also is well known for his contributions in nuclear organization. Methods books have more than one method for gel systems, such that citing it will take more space than citing the original article. It seems that you cannot grasp that there are space limitations for papers.

It is so difficult to cite the book chapter number? So important to save few character spaces? And cite the source you actually used.

Earlier you wrote that I confuse cats with lynxes. You saw a lynx on a picture. Although you could not read the text nearby, you posted a critical comment. That's because you are a referee and should teach everybody. If you indeed were smart you could see your error since lynxes are not that plenty. I suspect that your referee reports are on the same level. And as a result: Scientific journals rejected published articles, resubmitted in disguise

Simkins:  Stop using ad hominem arguments or you will receive an official warning.
Pravoslavbob  Non-religious topics Moderator
 

 

[Volnutt]

The lynx thing that you're so oddly obsessed with was my post, not Opus's. Leave him out of that weird little aside.

 

[Simkins]

The lynx thing that you're so oddly obsessed with was my post, not Opus's. Leave him out of that weird little aside.

So bad I mixed up the two wise and distinguished scientists. But you do write your referee reports just like you wrote that comment, right?

 

[Volnutt]

The lynx thing that you're so oddly obsessed with was my post, not Opus's. Leave him out of that weird little aside.

So bad I mixed up the two wise and distinguished scientists. But you do write your referee reports just like you wrote that comment, right?

I'm not a scientist. I am getting sick and tired of being insulted by you, though.

 

[Simkins]

I'm not a scientist.

Why then are you defending these learned hamsters?

I am getting sick and tired of being insulted by you, though.

I should undergo the ophthalmological  procedure prescribed by the physician whose raise from the dead we are about to celebrate.

 

[Volnutt]

I'm not a scientist.

Why then are you defending these learned hamsters?

Because I think you're painting with too broad a brush and tarring some honest people along with them?

I am getting sick and tired of being insulted by you, though.

I should undergo the ophthalmological  procedure prescribed by the physician whose raise from the dead we are about to celebrate.

Might not be a bad idea. We all should.

 

[Simkins]

Because I think you're painting with too broad a brush and tarring some honest people along with them?

Peradventure ten shall be found there.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,73495.0.html