This is an issue with using citations has the measure of everything. If I am writing a paper and mention a particular study that failed to replicate in subseque

This is an issue with using citations has the measure of everything. If I am writing a paper and mention a particular study that failed to replicate in subsequent attempts, I still cite the original paper. It is understandable that a seminal or surprising study gets cited well after it is refuted. Take for example Jaeggi's studies that claimed Working Memory training increases IQ...a claim shown to not replicate in countless follow-ups. I myself have cited a number of her papers, right before I also cite the contradictory evidence. I would expect similar patterns in other papers. A citation isn't an endorsement of the findings, but rather an acknowledgement that a piece of work is worth mentioning, whether it be in a good, or bad, light. An alternative to GoogleScholar is Research Rabbit, an AI enabled platform that maps the networks between paper allowing for an author to see who cited the paper they intend to cite, who did the original paper cite etc etc.