The most cited articles in top science journals turned out to be least likely to be repeatable. More likely they are funded for Politically Biased goals.
Posted by freedomforall 3 weeks, 3 days ago to Science
Excerpt:
"When it comes to scientific truths, even in top journals like Science and Nature, the more wrong it is, the more it gets cited. Even after other researchers have failed to repeat it, and been published saying so, the citations don’t slow down. Almost 9 out of 10 of the new citations keep citing it as if it were still correct. Who said science was self-correcting?
It’s so bad that the junkier articles in Nature and Science that couldn’t be replicated were cited 300 times as often as the more boring papers that could be replicated. In other words, the supposedly best two science journals, and the industry that reads them, have become a filter for eye-candy-science-junk.
And it was all so predictable — with the fixation on “counting citations” as an inane substitute for analysis: we got what we didn’t think about. The drive to get citations and media headlines means the modern industry of science has become a filter to amplify sensationalism, not science.
Science is a form of entertainment, not a search for the truth.
A new replication crisis: Research that is less likely to be true is cited more
The authors added that journals may feel pressure to publish interesting findings, and so do academics. For example, in promotion decisions, most academic institutions use citations as an important metric in the decision of whether to promote a faculty member.
This may be the source of the “replication crisis,” first discovered the early 2010s.
So much for the theory that peer reviewed journals are supposed to be the rigorous guardians of modern science."
The original study of this:
https://advances.sciencemag.org/conte...
"When it comes to scientific truths, even in top journals like Science and Nature, the more wrong it is, the more it gets cited. Even after other researchers have failed to repeat it, and been published saying so, the citations don’t slow down. Almost 9 out of 10 of the new citations keep citing it as if it were still correct. Who said science was self-correcting?
It’s so bad that the junkier articles in Nature and Science that couldn’t be replicated were cited 300 times as often as the more boring papers that could be replicated. In other words, the supposedly best two science journals, and the industry that reads them, have become a filter for eye-candy-science-junk.
And it was all so predictable — with the fixation on “counting citations” as an inane substitute for analysis: we got what we didn’t think about. The drive to get citations and media headlines means the modern industry of science has become a filter to amplify sensationalism, not science.
Science is a form of entertainment, not a search for the truth.
A new replication crisis: Research that is less likely to be true is cited more
The authors added that journals may feel pressure to publish interesting findings, and so do academics. For example, in promotion decisions, most academic institutions use citations as an important metric in the decision of whether to promote a faculty member.
This may be the source of the “replication crisis,” first discovered the early 2010s.
So much for the theory that peer reviewed journals are supposed to be the rigorous guardians of modern science."
The original study of this:
https://advances.sciencemag.org/conte...
Back in 1994 when I was a postdoc, my boss said that half of what gets published cannot be reproduced. I have long found that to be correct.