4 ms·
But the point is that the retracted research is irrelevant even inside research. That is kind of a blow. It points to the discipline not being coherently built
by nequo 3y ago
But the point is that the retracted research is irrelevant even inside research. That is kind of a blow.
It points to the discipline not being coherently built on shared theories but rather being a set of disjointed hypotheses.
- RandomLensman 3y agoA lot research is even irrelevant to the broader research community (beyond the specific researcher and perhaps the associated teams) - nothing new, I fear.
- ssivark 3y agoBut if that’s the kind of research that racks up tens of thousands of citations, does that mean all the researchers in the field are simply LARPing?
- RandomLensman 3y agoDoubt it. I cannot speak to that field, but references/citations can have their own dynamics and life. As the OP pointed to the limited consequences of the papers being retracted, the citations could be just "expected" nods to certain things in papers.
- kelipso 3y agoYeah citations can be as simple as "this concept was mentioned in this paper first".
- civilitty 3y ago> It points to the discipline not being coherently built on shared theories but rather being a set of disjointed hypotheses. My understanding is that this is one of the hallmarks of the replication crisis in psychology - studies that claim high effect sizes or otherwise high impact results without any plausible mechanism of action to explain them.