3 ms·

You picked a bad example. The actual source article is published at... arxiv. From an academic perspective it is worth exactly as much as a blog. Academic lite

by kilburn 10y ago

You picked a bad example. The actual source article is published at... arxiv. From an academic perspective it is worth exactly as much as a blog. Academic literature has many problems but it is way above the blogosphere in that regard. And media coverage is going to suck no matter where stuff is published...

gpm 10y ago
> From an academic perspective it is worth exactly as much as a blog. From the perspective of peer review, yes. But per google scholar that paper has been 66 cited times, including in many articles that are in at least somewhat reputable journals (published via Elsevier, ieee, Springer, etc) and apparently two books [0]. So I think it's pretty clear that being a "scientific paper from Princeton" was significant reputation wise regardless of whether or not it was peer reviewed. [0] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Epidemiological%20modeling%20of%20online%20social%20network%20dynamics&btnG=Search&as_sdt=800000000001&as_sdtp=on https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Epidemiological%20model... I was also skeptical about the citations so I checked that two with freely available pdfs were actually this paper, they were [1] https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4ebb/b654c59aff454ad97301e6ecd9e82c69122b.pdf https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4ebb/b654c59aff454ad97301e6... [2] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.07805.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.07805.pdf
- bbctol 10y ago
  Right, but it's not a scientific paper. It's a problem when people trust something just because it came out of Princeton, but the problem you're identifying isn't one with scientific papers (and the citations you've identified are places where they're using the Cannarella paper as an example of people being interested in applying epidemiology to social networks, not citing the research they did as accurate or important.)
- mikk14 10y ago
  The majority of the papers citing it that I checked (including the two you have linked yourself) makes the citation for the idea of the method (using epidemiology models in the context of social media), not for the results.
- pgbovine 10y ago
  several of my blog posts have had high google scholar citation counts; doesn't make them scientific articles, though. still just my personal opinions.

by kilburn 10y ago

gpm 10y ago

> From an academic perspective it is worth exactly as much as a blog. From the perspective of peer review, yes. But per google scholar that paper has been 66 cited times, including in many articles that are in at least somewhat reputable journals (published via Elsevier, ieee, Springer, etc) and apparently two books [0]. So I think it's pretty clear that being a "scientific paper from Princeton" was significant reputation wise regardless of whether or not it was peer reviewed. [0] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Epidemiological%20modeling%20of%20online%20social%20network%20dynamics&btnG=Search&as_sdt=800000000001&as_sdtp=on https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Epidemiological%20model... I was also skeptical about the citations so I checked that two with freely available pdfs were actually this paper, they were [1] https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4ebb/b654c59aff454ad97301e6ecd9e82c69122b.pdf https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4ebb/b654c59aff454ad97301e6... [2] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.07805.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.07805.pdf

bbctol 10y ago
Right, but it's not a scientific paper. It's a problem when people trust something just because it came out of Princeton, but the problem you're identifying isn't one with scientific papers (and the citations you've identified are places where they're using the Cannarella paper as an example of people being interested in applying epidemiology to social networks, not citing the research they did as accurate or important.)
mikk14 10y ago
The majority of the papers citing it that I checked (including the two you have linked yourself) makes the citation for the idea of the method (using epidemiology models in the context of social media), not for the results.
pgbovine 10y ago
several of my blog posts have had high google scholar citation counts; doesn't make them scientific articles, though. still just my personal opinions.