Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
The leaning tower of Piezo

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.



fruit of the poisoned tree research review

check revocations and fix science with them
  (+4, -1)
(+4, -1)
  [vote for,

It's often the case that citations built on citations built on research that has been discredited or withdrawn is relied upon.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 backtrace of generally discredited research every few years and either modify or withdraw paper citing it.

edit: As I said The citing paper would be modified or withdrawn, not unilaterally withdrawn.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.
Voice, Mar 03 2011

Citation http://en.wikipedia...iki/Cessna_Citation
[TomP, Mar 05 2011]

Nope, drove. http://en.wikipedia.../Chevrolet_Citation
Recall city... [RayfordSteele, Mar 06 2011]

Piloted? http://sailboatdata...d.asp?class_id=1582
[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       //It's often the case that citations built on citations built on research that has been discredited or withdrawn is relied upon.//   

       Cite ?
FlyingToaster, Mar 03 2011

       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.
RayfordSteele, Mar 03 2011

       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?
Wrongfellow, Mar 03 2011

       How would this rule apply to papers that were citing other papers with the express purpose of discrediting them?
DrBob, Mar 03 2011

       //Goats per seville//   

       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
not_morrison_rm, Mar 04 2011

       If it is the case that the majority of these papers stand, then why is food science information always in such a tizzy?
RayfordSteele, Mar 04 2011

       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 ideals.   

       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.
mouseposture, Mar 05 2011

       //I drove a citation once.//   

       Shouldn't that be 'flew'? [link]
TomP, Mar 05 2011

       Nope, drove.
RayfordSteele, Mar 06 2011


back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle