h a l f b a k e r y
Why on earth would you want that many gazelles anyway?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
or get an account
It's often the case that citations built on citations built on
research that has been discredited or withdrawn is relied
upon. This can be avoided if science journals do a
of generally discredited research every few years and either
modify or withdraw paper citing it.
As I said
The citing paper would be modified or withdrawn, not
unilaterally withdrawn. Obviously in the case of a paper
discrediting another paper no modification is needed.
[TomP, Mar 05 2011]
Recall city... [RayfordSteele, Mar 06 2011]
[Voice, Mar 06 2011, last modified Mar 25 2014]
||//It's often the case that citations built on citations built on research that has been discredited or withdrawn is relied upon.//
||I drove a citation once. It was not reliable.
||If all research were presented in some form of HTML
that carried a source reliability 'parity byte,' it could
be automatically shut off if that parity byte were
violated somehow. Perhaps a complex paper
presenting several items and from several sources
could automatically check a pile of live parity bytes,
with applicable conclusion paragraphs disappearing as
the source parity byte dies.
||In an ideal world, discredited research would become discredited as a result of all the people who cite it in order to point out that it's nonsense.
||If you withdraw anything that cites a discredited paper, where's the documentation of the reasons why it was discredited?
||How would this rule apply to papers that were citing other papers with the express purpose of discrediting them?
||Dammit, those goats gave up their own lives in the pursuit of scientific advancement of marmalade making, or possibly opera, the least they deserve is a little credit in the paper
||If it is the case that the majority of these papers
stand, then why is food science information always
in such a tizzy?
||Sciences that don't have "science" in their name are older
than the ones that do, which may be correlated, albeit
imperfectly, with how closely they approximate scientific
||Reminds me of one of my teachers who, if we brought him
a paper contradicting one of his pet ideas, from a journal
he didn't follow, would look at the volume number, and, if
it were in the single digits, dismiss it as an inferior journal
(hence, inferior paper) because the journal wasn't old
enough to be prestigious.
||//I drove a citation once.//
||Shouldn't that be 'flew'? [link]