87 thousand doctors & nurses denounce both Covidiocy and the vaccine

submitted by [deleted] from gvid.tv

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]madcow-5 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Bret and Heather Weinstein discussed a lot on their recent podcast how there's a market in the scientific community for publishing things that will get cited, regardless of quality. Creating an incentive to amp up the fear factor in COVID19 research, because a million and one media outlets and journals will then cite their paper. They went into detail on one recently published study that's being cited all over right now and basically rendered it meaningless. But it makes for a juicy headline, so it's passing as "science".

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

For what it's worth, one cannot get an academic promotion unless one's research is cited and used by other scientists. Scientists must also refer to and consider the work of other scientists in order to responsibly assess their own results.

[–]noice 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Of course. But the proxy for high quality and high impact research has become the number of citations, which itself becomes a heavily gamed metric divorced from the thing that it's supposed to quantify.

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

It's a process whereby the state of the research can be confirmed. When there are problems with the initial research, it's challenged by other scientists, and in most cases a correction is published where necessary. There is no alternative approach that would have scientists respond to the research. A video that provides no reliable evidence certainly doesn't help.

[–]madcow-5 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

They mentioned specifically it’s the drive for as many citations as possible in academic jobs. According to them, even negative citations help.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Metrics used for Research Assessment Exercises are supposed to consider negative citations and associated retractions. A portion of the metric initially counts all citations and offers information on the 'world class' nature of the state of the research, even if there are negative citations. I would agree that the latter is a serious problem. Research Assessment Exercise committees are tasked with locating the negative citations and retractions, but they can also get this wrong, and have done so.

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

You justify everything.

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

LOL. I should note that Research Assessment Exercise metrics are extremely annoying for academics who are not in the sciences, as the metrics were not appropriately adjusted for non-science academics. I suppose I could say - yeah, fuck the Research Assessment Exercise - but that's not part of a solution for dealing with it, even if true.

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

I didn't say anything about the RAE, my guy.