4 ms·

editors and peer reviewers really need to do a better job flagging citations of retracted papers...

chrisseaton 6y ago
Again, the issue is not the citation... it's what the citation is used to do. If an historian cites Mein Kampf it's not because they're agreeing with it, is it?
- jjk166 6y ago
  If a historian cites Mein Kampf, they're using it as a primary source - they might not agree with the opinions expressed within but they do believe Hitler expressed those opinions. If a historian cited a work that turned out to be a forgery, and did not acknowledge in their paper that it was a forgery, then their paper would certainly be suspect. True citing a retracted paper is not automatically 100% unacceptable, but it is something that should automatically demand further scrutiny.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    > If a historian cites Mein Kampf, they're using it as a primary source - they might not agree with the opinions expressed within but they do believe Hitler expressed those opinions. Yes... same as a scientist uses citations. Citing someone doesn't mean 'I fully believe and support this person', it means 'I'm referring to what this person said' and they believe that's what the paper said. That's all. The text using the citation adds the context of what the author thinks.
    - jjk166 6y ago
      You've completely missed what I was saying. A historian doesn't cite Mein Kampf to give context to what they're saying, the historian uses Mein Kampf as data. For a historian, Mein Kampf is perfectly valid data. On the other hand, Mein Kampf 2: Meiner Kampfer is not valid data, and any paper citing it as if it were should be immediately considered suspect. A scientist citing a retracted paper is like a historian citing a forgery: fine if it's a harmless aside, catastrophic if their claims hinge upon its reliability.
      - chrisseaton 6y ago
        > the historian uses Mein Kampf as data So... the same way that a scientist could cite a retracted paper. To say that these people said this thing and then it was retracted. To discuss the context of that retraction and what it means, and so on.
- jansan 6y ago
  Mein Kapmpf is not a scientific paper that can be retracted. Or have I messed some recent developments?
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    > Mein Kapmpf is not a scientific paper that can be retracted. I didn't say it was. > Or have I messed some recent developments? Why are you being sarcastic?
    - jansan 6y ago
      >Why are you being sarcastic? It's my nature.

Again, the issue is not the citation... it's what the citation is used to do. If an historian cites Mein Kampf it's not because they're agreeing with it, is it?

jjk166 6y ago
If a historian cites Mein Kampf, they're using it as a primary source - they might not agree with the opinions expressed within but they do believe Hitler expressed those opinions. If a historian cited a work that turned out to be a forgery, and did not acknowledge in their paper that it was a forgery, then their paper would certainly be suspect. True citing a retracted paper is not automatically 100% unacceptable, but it is something that should automatically demand further scrutiny.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > If a historian cites Mein Kampf, they're using it as a primary source - they might not agree with the opinions expressed within but they do believe Hitler expressed those opinions. Yes... same as a scientist uses citations. Citing someone doesn't mean 'I fully believe and support this person', it means 'I'm referring to what this person said' and they believe that's what the paper said. That's all. The text using the citation adds the context of what the author thinks.
  - jjk166 6y ago
    You've completely missed what I was saying. A historian doesn't cite Mein Kampf to give context to what they're saying, the historian uses Mein Kampf as data. For a historian, Mein Kampf is perfectly valid data. On the other hand, Mein Kampf 2: Meiner Kampfer is not valid data, and any paper citing it as if it were should be immediately considered suspect. A scientist citing a retracted paper is like a historian citing a forgery: fine if it's a harmless aside, catastrophic if their claims hinge upon its reliability.
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      > the historian uses Mein Kampf as data So... the same way that a scientist could cite a retracted paper. To say that these people said this thing and then it was retracted. To discuss the context of that retraction and what it means, and so on.
jansan 6y ago
Mein Kapmpf is not a scientific paper that can be retracted. Or have I messed some recent developments?
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > Mein Kapmpf is not a scientific paper that can be retracted. I didn't say it was. > Or have I messed some recent developments? Why are you being sarcastic?
  - jansan 6y ago
    >Why are you being sarcastic? It's my nature.