Hundreds of extreme self-citing scientists revealed in new database
1–10 of 215 posts
Re: Hundreds of extreme self-citing scientists revealed in new database
#2Given that pagerank had its origins in citations it should not be surprising to find link farms and other spam in scientific publications.
Re: Hundreds of extreme self-citing scientists revealed in new database
#3People 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 progress on solvable problems.
Re: Hundreds of extreme self-citing scientists revealed in new database
#4I 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.
Re: Hundreds of extreme self-citing scientists revealed in new database
#5People 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?
Re: Hundreds of extreme self-citing scientists revealed in new database
#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
Re: Hundreds of extreme self-citing scientists revealed in new database
#7People 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…
Sure, but there is no 'pruning of the tree' in case a dead end is reached, so the citations stay allowing the quack to pretend they have more credibility than they do. In fact, the whole idea of these citations is to build credibility where there is none.
Re: Hundreds of extreme self-citing scientists revealed in new database
#8On 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.
Re: Hundreds of extreme self-citing scientists revealed in new database
#9I 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.
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.
Re: Hundreds of extreme self-citing scientists revealed in new database
#10People 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?
Possibly Barry Marshall and Robin Warren who discovered H Pylori causes peptic ulcers and subsequently won a Nobel Prize. They were ridiculed by doctors and scientists for their theory.