While this article feels true, I wish it provided more of its own researched evidence to prove the point. I went through several links and possibly the most rel

While this article feels true, I wish it provided more of its own researched evidence to prove the point. I went through several links and possibly the most relevant ones are "Why are medical journals full of fashionable nonsense?"[1] and the book "Science Fictions"[2]. Most of the other links talk about other tangentially related topics. The subheading "How the attention economy corrupts science" which should contain the meat actually has little to no research of its own that can convince me of the title (unless I'm willing to read the book "Science Fictions"). I read the article "Why are medical journals full of fashionable nonsense?" and found it to have a similar vibe although it had more concrete evidence. Still, the need for more than a few examples is something I feel is fair to call for. Basically, I don't find it to fully support this original article about "attention economy" corrupting science. Overall, I think this is quite an ironic state. The article seems to hold on to what feels like an idea that is socially popular, something we all suspect, and it presents it as true with evidence that is either vague or indirect (look, this book exists on the topic, therefore it is true). The article fails to clearly draw the differences between "working hard to get attention to one's science" vs "the act of getting attention is corrupting science". I'm overall unconvinced that this article really does anything much to support its premise. [1] - https://bigthink.com/health/medical-journals-fashionable-nonsense/ https://bigthink.com/health/medical-journals-fashionable-non... [2] - https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250222688/sciencefictions https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250222688/sciencefictions