Oscar_Cunningham comments on Follow-up on ESP study: "We don't publish replications" - Less Wrong

71 Post author: CarlShulman 12 July 2011 08:48PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (50)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 12 July 2011 12:25:40AM *  7 points [-]

A paper without any citations is generally considered such a bad source that it's only one step up from wikipedia. You can cite it, if you must, but you better not base your research on it.

If this were true how would anyone ever get the first citation?

(Incidentally in my own field, there are a lot of papers that don't get cited. It isn't because the papers are wrong (although some very small fraction of them have that problem) but that they just aren't interesting. But math is very different from most other fields.)

Comment author: Oscar_Cunningham 14 July 2011 09:44:29AM 5 points [-]

If this were true how would anyone ever get the first citation?

Some papers (those written by high status authors) are ones that everyone knows will get citations soon after they are published, and so they feel safe in citing them since others are soon to do so. Self-fulfilling prophecy.