Live data from Hacker News

Hundreds of extreme self-citing scientists revealed in new database

nature.com

41–50 of 215 posts

Re: Hundreds of extreme self-citing scientists revealed in new database

#41
post #20

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?

You're seriously underestimating the number of things there are to study and overestimating how many people there are to do the study.

This is nothing like tech startups, where you have tons of people sharing a relatively small problem space (creating tech tools companies want).

Consider for a moment: there are well over 350,000 different species of beetles. Theres just too much to study and too few people doing the work to expect there to always be a plethora of external research to draw upon.

Re: Hundreds of extreme self-citing scientists revealed in new database

#42
post #4

I found this situation regularly when going down the rabbithole of the anti-vaxx or anti-5g people. One "scientist" makes a highly dubious claim, thousands of nutjobs cite this one scientist, "scientist" then goes on to cite articles that cites their work. I'm basically waiting to find Alex Jones cited in a serious article at this point.

This is called citogenesis.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_citogenesi...

Re: Hundreds of extreme self-citing scientists revealed in new database

#43
post #21

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]

[deleted]

Re: Hundreds of extreme self-citing scientists revealed in new database

#44
post #5

People who are working out their ideas far outside the mainstream have no one to cite but them selves. Some are quacks, to be sure, but sometimes a field is just not ready for their work because the utility of the idea is not easily apparent, or because it's perceived to be too risky. A field needs a healthy mix of the the curmudgeonly stubborn thinkers going their way no matter the cost, and those making steady prog…

Do you have any good examples, historical or otherwise?

I was going to suggest Peter Turchin as an outsider to history / sociology but he seems to have been able to get published in highly reputable journals http://peterturchin.com/academic-publications/#Articles_in_N...

Re: Hundreds of extreme self-citing scientists revealed in new database

#46
post #20

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?

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/how-useless-science-unrav...

At the time, chytrids were about as obscure as a topic in science can be. Though fungi compose an entire organismal kingdom, on a level with plants or animals, mycology was and largely still is an esoteric field. Plant biologists are practically primetime television stars compared to mycologists. Only a handful of people had even heard of chytrids, and fewer still studied them. There was no inkling back then of the great significance they would later hold.

Longcore happened to know about chytrids because her mentor at the University of Michigan, the great mycologist Fred Sparrow, had studied them. Much yet remained to be learned—just in the course of her doctoral studies, Longcore identified three new species and a new genus—and to someone with a voracious interest in nature, chytrids were appealing. Their evolutionary origins date back 600 million years; though predominantly aquatic, they can be found in just about every moisture-rich environment; their spores propel themselves through water with flagella closely resembling the tails of sperm. Never mind that studying chytrids was, to use Joyce’s own word, “useless,” at least by the usual standards of utility. Chytrids were interesting.

The university gave Joyce an office and a microscope. She went to work: collecting chytrids from ponds and bogs and soils, teaching herself to grow them in cultures, describing them in painstaking detail, mapping their evolutionary trees. She published regularly in mycological journals, adding crumbs to the vast storehouse of human knowledge.

And so it might have continued but for a strange happening at the National Zoo in Washington, D.C., where poison blue dart frogs started dying for no evident reason. The zoo’s pathologists, Don Nichol and Allan Pessier, were baffled. They also happened to notice something odd growing on the dead frogs. A fungus, they suspected, probably aquatic in origin, though not one they recognized. An internet search turned up Longcore as someone who might have some ideas. They sent her a sample which she promptly cultured and characterized as a new genus and species of chytrid: Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, she named it, or Bd for short.

That particular chytrid would prove to cause a disease more devastating than, as best as scientists can tell, any other in the story of life on Earth. After Longcore’s initial characterization, she and Nichol and Pessier proceeded to show that frogs exposed to Bd died. Other scientists soon linked Bd and its disease, dubbed chytridiomycosis, to massive, inexplicable die-offs of amphibians in Costa Rica, Australia, and the western United States. No disease had ever been known to cause a species to go extinct; as of this writing, chytridiomycosis has driven dozens to extinction, threatens hundreds more, and has been found in more than 500 species.

Almost overnight Longcore went from obscurity to the scientific center of an amphibian apocalypse. “Had I not been studying the ‘useless’ chytrids,” she says, “we wouldn’t have known how to deal with them.” Her research has been crucial—not only the initial characterization, but also her understanding of the systematics and classification of chytrids, which helped provide a conceptual scaffold for questions about Bd: Where did it come from? What made it so strange and so terrible? Why does it affect some species differently than others?

Re: Hundreds of extreme self-citing scientists revealed in new database

#47
post #36
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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? Imagine how many inventions we would have missed if all inventors had shared your mindset.

I think you’ve misinterpreted what I said. I’m not suggesting everyone is a fool, quite the opposite. It’s just an important question to ask yourself.

[deleted]

Re: Hundreds of extreme self-citing scientists revealed in new database

#49
post #6

"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?

People who are rewarded are the people most cited, even if they are citing themselves.

Think that’s producing the best scientific results?

Re: Hundreds of extreme self-citing scientists revealed in new database

#50
post #21

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?)

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20752035
Post reply on HN