Maybe I should've been more clear by saying subfield? But yeah those metrics mentioned are at best used informally, yet I'm sure there's stilly subfields in eco

Maybe I should've been more clear by saying subfield? But yeah those metrics mentioned are at best used informally, yet I'm sure there's stilly subfields in economics that uses those to make silly conclusions, and publish it taking advantage of the prestige slamming "economics" on to it cause. Doesn't mean the entire field should be tarnished, but nonetheless it's a sign that there's a certain reluctance to enforce rigor that should be reflected on the field as a whole. Just mentioning that how they handle measuring can tell you a lot of the scientific field. Not every academic field deploy same rigor in the measurement, and stuff like that can cause funny example such as dead salmon fMRI study. When subfield that uses shoddy measurement start to take a bigger proportion of the published literature in that field, one ought to increase one's scepticism proportionally (such as certain subfields of psychology.)