Live data from Hacker News

Does Tweeting Improve Citations? One-Year Results from a Randomized Trial

annalsthoracicsurgery.org

81–83 of 83 posts

Re: Does Tweeting Improve Citations? One-Year Results from a Randomized Trial

#81
post #64
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if there's an inverse relationship between the level of pressure on scientists to publish, tweet, blog and demonstrate the social relevance of their work, and groundbreaking advances in fundamental physics.

There was an opinion piece on PNAS a few years ago that argued just that, no hard evidence though: https://www.pnas.org/content/113/34/9384

Thanks, that was a good read. Perelman is actually one of the examples I had at the back of my mind.

Re: Does Tweeting Improve Citations? One-Year Results from a Randomized Trial

#82
post #80
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who said anything about social stats? Levitt in particular says he feels like his research can have a bigger impact if it’s shared broadly with people than if it reaches 10 other academics and that’s it. We’re not talking about likes on social media, we’re talking about breadth of audience for academic research and how scientists can do better than chasing meaningless citation stats. Levitt talks about his thought pr…

> Who said anything about social stats? You did. > Dubner went went down the podcaster route. 15 years later, Dubner has reached millions of people [...] I assume this is measured in terms of subscribers or listen counts. I'm not saying the Freakonomics Stevens have/haven't had quality contributions to the world, I'm not even saying anything w.r.t. average podcast quality vs. average academic paper quality. I'm only…

[deleted]

Re: Does Tweeting Improve Citations? One-Year Results from a Randomized Trial

#83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the state of science in a lot fields unfortunately. Many reviewers skim the paper, put in a thinly veiled complaint about why their own paper was not cited, and don't bother with the code. The code itself is always usually a mess: no readme, no license, random binaries, and a 'pipeline' which is simply a bunch of perl and python scripts cobbler together from snippets found on the web. People publish, then mov…

> This is the state of science in a lot fields unfortunately. Many reviewers skim the paper, put in a thinly veiled complaint about why their own paper was not cited, and don't bother with the code. Excuse me. Is this your actual experience or the meme that everybody is simply repeating? In the admittedly few papers I have published, the reviewers’ feedback has been a net positive I wouldn’t be without. Also, the gen…

Actual experience. The state of code in Bioinformatics is a joke. Many do not know the word 'conda' or 'docker', and example datasets are far and few between.
Post reply on HN