21–30 of 215 posts
[1]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you work in a very narrow field of science you're basically on your own and have to cite yourself because there's nobody else to cite.
In which case you have to ask yourself, are you so brilliant that you’ve found an important topic that no one has considered yet, or have all the brilliant people already figured out that topic isn’t worthy of study? It’s the same with the startup world. If you’re the only one doing a thing, are you brilliant or foolish?
Imagine how many inventions we would have missed if all inventors had shared your mindset.
The core problem here is that universities think that citation statistics are a useful metric to evaluate the quality of the work of a scientist. There's plenty of evidence that this is not the case or that even the reverse may be the case [1], but this idea refuses to die. [1]
"In 2017, a study showed that scientists in Italy began citing themselves more heavily after a controversial 2010 policy was introduced that required academics to meet productivity thresholds to be eligible for promotion" Cobra Effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect
I don't see that it's the Cobra effect. Did it actively make them less productive?
Not defending people who self-cite but here is an alternative explanation. There are many areas of science that have very few researchers working on the same or related problems. In addition papers tend to build on prior works of the same or related researchers. Over time we may see clusters of what look like "self-cited" papers. This is not abnormal.
You need a source of trust in these systems. Journals used to have that role. They had high standards that were upheld by editors selecting only worthy publications. Today it seems that many journals aren't as trustworthy as they seemed to be in the past. It's also easier to spam the journals with your publication and to bullshit your way into publication. The incentives to publish a lot are also way higher now that…
The core problem here is that universities think that citation statistics are a useful metric to evaluate the quality of the work of a scientist. There's plenty of evidence that this is not the case or that even the reverse may be the case [1], but this idea refuses to die. [1]
Did you forget to include the source? (I'm using an app so maybe it's not displaying it?)
The core problem here is that universities think that citation statistics are a useful metric to evaluate the quality of the work of a scientist. There's plenty of evidence that this is not the case or that even the reverse may be the case [1], but this idea refuses to die. [1]
The core problem here is that universities think that citation statistics are a useful metric to evaluate the quality of the work of a scientist. There's plenty of evidence that this is not the case or that even the reverse may be the case [1], but this idea refuses to die. [1]
On a semi-related note, I occasionally look at the news items Google news suggests for me, and these include a significant portion of climate change denialists propaganda, including one shocked, shocked by Nature "suppressing academic freedom with this list" (and my searches are never for climate denialism). Which is to say, these may be a few sciences but it seems like they significant resources behind them, somehow…