Reddit mad at his brother

submitted by Tarrock from (media.communities.win)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I appreciate this may be a statistical likelihood and agree that peer reviewed studies are of course no comparison to a wiki article, but my point is that a citation is merely a reference point to other material that may be related or used as a source of information.

It might be that you discuss a mountain and cite the source that the mountain exists, and another source that the mountain is 1236ft high. These citations do not add weight to a study looking to see the correlation between high altitudes and likelihood of there being a dragon living on it.

Ultimately the validity of the content, testing groups, parameters and potential impact of the outcome matters, not simply citations.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Right. So you said the paper is dodgy.

It's got 690-odd citations. Why don't you find some of those papers that also claim that it's dodgy?

You just saying without any academic support makes me suspect that you're probably wrong.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

I'm simply saying that a citation count is not an adequate guage to impress. 690 liberal lunatics could cite it for all I know. Academic support might also be funded or sponsored support. How can we know?

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I'm simly saying, if the paper is dodgy, show me a refutation.

Hell, show me half a dozen.

Academic support might also be funded or sponsored support.

Authors publish their institution. And they're supposed to declare any conflicts of interest.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Oh no, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the paper in particular. Just that citation is in my opinion a poor guage for being reputable.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's true. But it's also then best we have of we're not in the field.

But we should also understand the things that inflate citations.