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

[Mor Ephrem]

Every thread you start sucks.  Every thread you post in devolves into absurdity.  It makes me regret ever having participated in the creation of this forum. 

 

[Iconodule]

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

* and all threads begun by the same person

 

[Simkins]

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.

But the visible world was the same for the ancient Greek who figured out that Earth is round because a boat disappears from view when it is far enough. Why would your mind be different from that of your grandfather? You did not figure out that the Earth is round yourself. You just repeat what you have been told. Your grandfather was told different things. But this the same mind.

 

[Simkins]

Every thread you start sucks.   

You got offended for the learned hamsters? They teach that you are a schizophreniac in their lectures:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WwAQqWUkpI

They would put you on medication so that you do not see things and hear voices.

Every thread you post in devolves into absurdity. 

And the Son of God died: it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd.

 

[Mor Ephrem]

Look out, we’ve got ourselves a Tertullian wannabe here...

 

[Volnutt]

Every thread you start sucks.   

You got offended for the learned hamsters? They teach that you are a schizophreniac in their lectures:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WwAQqWUkpI

They would put you on medication so that you do not see things and hear voices.

Based on some of the things you post, I'm guessing that you would as well, Mr. Concern Troll.

 

[Iconodule]

Guys, you were doing good. Two whole days of ignoring this guy. You can tell he was getting nervous because he had to post again today. Let's make it four now, okay?

 

[Volnutt]

Guys, you were doing good. Two whole days of ignoring this guy. You can tell he was getting nervous because he had to post again today. Let's make it four now, okay?

It's hard for me. I'm the embodiment of the "Somebody is wrong on the Internet" guy lol.

 

[Simkins]

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.

To interact with them they first should exist. Three of your links are sarcastic articles about alleged flat earthers. The fourth is a strange forum with posts by a single user

http://ifers.123.st/t138-flat-earth-image-proofs

Show me a news story in the media which argues for flat Earth.  On alternative news sites, like that of Alex Jones, they do question American manned Moon mission. Allegedly happened 50 years ago and for some mysterious reason not repeated recently. But they never say that Earth is flat.

 

[Volnutt]

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.

To interact with them they first should exist. Three of your links are sarcastic articles about alleged flat earthers. The fourth is a strange forum with posts by a single user

http://ifers.123.st/t138-flat-earth-image-proofs

Show me a news story in the media which argues for flat Earth.  On alternative news sites, like that of Alex Jones, they do question American manned Moon mission. Allegedly happened 50 years ago and for some mysterious reason not repeated recently. But they never say that Earth is flat.

Nah, no thanks. I'm tired of your noise. I think I'll take Iconodule's advice from now on.

Maybe you should get a hobby or something.

 

[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.

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.

So many people did like "Hannity and Colmes." A dancing marathon of our time.  My views are far from those of Colmes but I was disgusted by the show. However  Homo Americanus  like it. Colmes even died because of this abuse.

 

[Simkins]

Could this strange reference have been planted by Trotsky from Carnegie Mellon ?

 

[Opus118]

Could this strange reference have been planted by Trotsky from Carnegie Mellon ?

I am not sure what kind of response you are expecting. I did not take statistics, what I know is self taught from text books when it became necessary.

On the top of page 2 of your arXiv.org paper: "Not for every murder the database has the exact date. Often only the month or even only the year." Change this to "Not every murder in the database has the exact date. Many specify only the month and/or year."

I did not understand the justification for this: "Even if a killer committed a single murder on an uncertain date and many murders on certain dates he was excluded at this stage." Why not just exclude the uncertain date? Why would the inclusion change the outcome?

You go on with additional exclusions. It is hard to understand why because there is no mention of why this analysis is potentially useful. It makes no sense to present data solely because it can be curve fitted.

Also, Shalizi's sense of humor is similar to yours. See http://arxiv.org/abs/adap-org/9910002. I need to get both of you over some evening.

 

[Simkins]

I did not understand the justification for this: "Even if a killer committed a single murder on an uncertain date and many murders on certain dates he was excluded at this stage." Why not just exclude the uncertain date? Why would the inclusion change the outcome?

This is elementary my dear Opus. If we just exclude the uncertain date, we will introduce one wrong inter-murder interval in our data. The one which in reality is a sum of two intervals of unknown length.

 

[Opus118]

I did not understand the justification for this: "Even if a killer committed a single murder on an uncertain date and many murders on certain dates he was excluded at this stage." Why not just exclude the uncertain date? Why would the inclusion change the outcome?

This is elementary my dear Opus. If we just exclude the uncertain date, we will introduce one wrong inter-murder interval in our data. The one which in reality is a sum of two intervals of unknown length.

OK, I understand. I was assuming there was a left over contiguous tract of events that could have been used.
I am assuming it is in a previous publication, but I am lazy. What is the hypothetical utility of this analysis?

 

[Simkins]

I need to get both of you over some evening.

I'll bring my ice axe.

 

[Simkins]

Continued Citation of Retracted Radiation Oncology Literature

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360301618340008

Over 500 citations to retracted articles appeared .... after they were retracted.

 

[Simkins]

Came across an interesting article
"Yes, Impostor Syndrome Is Real. Here's How to Deal With It"

https://time.com/5312483/how-to-deal-with-impostor-syndrome/

It talks about fears of being exposed as a frauds  wide spread (70%) among high achievers. They say it is a psychiatric condition which needs to be medically treated.

If you read the whole of this thread your will probably guess what I think the so-called Impostor Syndrome is. It is conscience.

Simkins:  You are posting here on the same subject you created a thread for elsewhere in the non-religious topics section, thus intentionally spamming the board.  You will receive a warning of 25%.  Any appeal should be directed to me in a PM.

Pravoslavbob
Non-Religious Topics Moderator

 

[Asteriktos]

If you read the whole of this thread your will probably guess what I think the so-called Impostor Syndrome is. It is conscience.

Citation needed.

 

[Simkins]

If you read the whole of this thread your will probably guess what I think the so-called Impostor Syndrome is. It is conscience.

Citation needed.

If you insist: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,73213.0.html

 

[Opus118]

It is a crap construct, if you truly believe this kind of conglomeration which I believe is distorted to fit the premise, we can discuss it. However the arrogance in your response to Asteriktos' question (and yes I read through the whole thread and came up with no clue as to what you deem as conscience except that you might not have one due to your answer), makes entertaining you a waste of time. You are way too full of yourself.

 

[WPM]

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).

You read about that because you WANT to and to pursue your interest in the fields of Science.

 

[Simkins]

It is a crap construct, if you truly believe this kind of conglomeration which I believe is distorted to fit the premise, we can discuss it.

I merely said that they feel like impostors because they actually are such. Plain common sense. The articles that I quoted attempt bizarre constructs to conceal this obvious fact.

However the arrogance in your response to Asteriktos' question (and yes I read through the whole thread and came up with no clue as to what you deem as conscience except that you might not have one due to your answer), makes entertaining you a waste of time. You are way too full of yourself.

As much as I understood he asked for citation for  "the whole of this thread." I gave him a link to the beginning of the thread.

 

[Ainnir]

However the arrogance in your response to Asteriktos' question (and yes I read through the whole thread and came up with no clue as to what you deem as conscience except that you might not have one due to your answer), makes entertaining you a waste of time. You are way too full of yourself.

:-*

 

[Simkins]

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.

For comparison Andrew Wiles Fermat theorem paper the last time I checked had  725 Web of Science and 2,365 Google Scholar  citations. And it as they say solved a problem unsolved for centuries.  So this citation index seems little related to the importance of the paper. The first three most cited papers are largely known for being most cited papers.

 

[Simkins]

The correlation  between winning a Nobel Prize and citation metrics is merely 0.2.
See the eLetter: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6312/aaf5239/tab-e-letters

 

[RaphaCam]

Simkins, what do you think about the new forum format?

 

[hecma925]

Simkins, what do you think about the new forum format?

Made by Jews that eat yogurt while rock climbing.

 

[Simkins]

Also, Shalizi's sense of humor is similar to yours. ... I need to get both of you over some evening.

Your Trotsyite friend sent his article containing his Trotskyite attack on free science down the memory hole
http://bactra.org/notebooks/857.html
Fortunately there is a copy in internet archive

"Can't seem to face up to the facts"

 

[Opus118]

Made by Jews that eat yogurt while rock climbing.

This is like reading the LA Times about a drive by shooting on the 405 freeway. What are you writing about?

 

[Opus118]

Your Trotsyite friend sent his article containing his Trotskyite attack on free science down the memory hole
http://bactra.org/notebooks/857.html
Fortunately there is a copy in internet archive

"Can't seem to face up to the facts"

I do not pay attention to labels like this and I do not know the author, but the style is similar.

I do have a question. Look at the number of cited by papers from 2016-2020 papers for the 2009 paper: https://epubs.siam.org/doi/pdf/10.1137/070710111. Is this normal for the field? Just curious. It seems like a huge amount.

 

[Simkins]

This is like reading the LA Times about a drive by shooting on the 405 freeway. What are you writing about?

Hecma implied that the new site design looks like excrement.

 

[Simkins]

I do not pay attention to labels like this and I do not know the author, but the style is similar.

He put a photo of Trotsky on the top of his personal webpage at CMU. So if it is a label - it is his own.

I do have a question. Look at the number of cited by papers from 2016-2020 papers for the 2009 paper: https://epubs.siam.org/doi/pdf/10.1137/070710111. Is this normal for the field? Just curious. It seems like a huge amount.

He is a true cited genius. For comparison Andrew Wiles did not even make it in first 100, 000 cited authors

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335131921_A_standardized_citation_metrics_author_database_annotated_for_scientific_field/comments

 

[Simkins]

Modern science, particularly biomedicine, is being damaged by attempts to measure the quantity and quality of research. Scientists are ranked according to these measures, a ranking that impacts on funding of grants, competition for posts and promotion. The measures seemed, at first rather harmless, but, like cuckoos in a nest, they have grown into monsters that threaten science itself. Already, they have produced an “audit society” [2] in which scientists aim, and indeed are forced, to put meeting the measures above trying to understand nature and disease. The journals are evaluated according to impact factors, and scientists and departments assessed according to the impact factors of the journals they publish in. Consequently, over the last twenty years a scientist’s primary aim has been downgraded from doing science to producing papers and contriving to get them into the “best” journals they can [3]. Now there is a new trend: the idea is to rank scientists by the numbers of citations their papers receive. Consequently, I predict that citation-fishing and citation- bartering will become major pursuits.

DEFINE_ME

 

[Opus118]

I 100% agree with this message. Journals have learned to manipulate the impact factor. I am not sure anyone believes them anymore, except the naive. A main problem that I see is that scientists are influenced to write grants that gear their research only to the latest and greatest "most popular" topic. It used to be that when you run into something where "you wonder about how this works", you could pursue that question even if it is outside of the popularity contest and still get grants. It is rather sad. Sometimes an unpopular area emerges like Crispr/Cas9, but there is still a lot to be learned from bacterial systems

https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-98.22(07)01516-3.pdf

 

[hecma925]

Academia's mantra is "Publish or die."

 

[Simkins]

The list of 100,000 most cited scientists includes only 6 out of 22 Abel Prize winners and only 22 out of 60 Fields Medal recipients

ShieldSquare Captcha

iopscience.iop.org

 

[Simkins]

Scientists do not read even the titles of the papers they write

PubPeer - Optical Force and its Applications Based on Heterosexual Pho...

There are comments on PubPeer for publication: Optical Force and its Applications Based on Heterosexual Phosphorene Waveguide (2018)

pubpeer.com

 

[Pravoslavbob]

Thread locked. This site is not your personal hobbyhorse to ride in order to support various theories of yours ad infinitum. Please do not start a similar thread or warning points will be issued.

Pravoslavbob
Non-Religious Topics Moderator