= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
CarlShulman comments on Problems with Academia and the Rising Sea - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (39)
This is an issue with efforts to encourage replication and critique of dubious studies: in addition to wasting a lot of resources replicating false positives, you have to cite the paper you're critiquing, which boosts its standing in mechanical academic merit assessments like those used in much UK science funding.
We would need a scientific equivalent of the "nofollow" attribute in HTML. A special kind of citation meaning: "this is wrong".
15 years ago, the academic search engine Citeseer was designed not just with the goal of finding academic papers, identifying which ones were the same, and counting citations, but, as indicated in its name, showing the user the context of the citations, to see if they were positive or negative.
I've occasionally wished for this myself. I look forward to semantic analysis being good enough to apply to academic papers, so computers can estimate the proportion of derogatory references to a paper instead of mechanically counting all references as positive.