4 ms·

https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=kUA4BQcAAAAJ&citation_for_view=kUA4BQcAAAAJ:YsMSGLbcyi4C https://scholar.google.com/citati

https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=kUA4BQcAAAAJ&citation_for_view=kUA4BQcAAAAJ:YsMSGLbcyi4C https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&h... 45 citations in 10 years for a paper pointing out a major systematic flaw in almost all foundations of amyloid reserch. the system is not working.

searine 1y ago
It was published and cited. 45 in 10 years is a reasonably okay citation count. What's the problem? Science is slow and consensus based. Ideas are put forth, tested, and replicated. Eventually a consensus is formed. If enough new contrary evidence is collected a new consensus can form. The article you linked is not consensus changing, but it adds weight on the scale of change, and clearly it worked. Mission accomplished. Science does not turn on a dime. It took many decades for Lynn Margulis's endosymbiosis theory to catch on, but it did. The evidence was eventually undeniable, and the consensus changed. This AD story is just another slow consensus change. We still don't know exactly how AD works. We still know amyloid is involved somehow. We now know amyloid isn't everything. The system works. It's just slower than you like it to be.
- throwawaymaths 1y ago
  45 in ten years is extremely low.
  - searine 1y ago
    That's just flat-out wrong. It is field dependent, but 40 is about average for biomedical basic research. Here is a citation for cardiovascular research average citation rates : (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3104007/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3104007/) . Specifically this paper explores 'high-performing' papers with an average of 66 ± 5 citations at 10y. This is a serious topic. And making a post like you did, spreads anti-science propaganda and anti-intellectualism.
    - throwawaymaths 1y ago
      it's really low in the amyloid field, especially for a fairly well regarded lab. and i have no compunction spreading what you call "anti-science propaganda". the scientists deserve what i dish, given their behaviour. it is, if anything, anti-intellectual to attempt to discredit real criticism of the scientific system that has real rational basis with low content slogans like "anti-science" that go against the very nature of science the process. youre only circling the wagons because you know youve done fucked up.
      - searine 1y ago
        It's an average citation count. I am in no way discrediting them. If anything, I am praising the article you posted for contributing to the progress of knowledge sharing and showing how it caused change. Change brought by the very system you're saying is broken. >youre only circling the wagons because you know youve done fucked up. This narrow-view attitude is going to be the death of science in America.

searine 1y ago

It was published and cited. 45 in 10 years is a reasonably okay citation count. What's the problem? Science is slow and consensus based. Ideas are put forth, tested, and replicated. Eventually a consensus is formed. If enough new contrary evidence is collected a new consensus can form. The article you linked is not consensus changing, but it adds weight on the scale of change, and clearly it worked. Mission accomplished. Science does not turn on a dime. It took many decades for Lynn Margulis's endosymbiosis theory to catch on, but it did. The evidence was eventually undeniable, and the consensus changed. This AD story is just another slow consensus change. We still don't know exactly how AD works. We still know amyloid is involved somehow. We now know amyloid isn't everything. The system works. It's just slower than you like it to be.

throwawaymaths 1y ago
45 in ten years is extremely low.
- searine 1y ago
  That's just flat-out wrong. It is field dependent, but 40 is about average for biomedical basic research. Here is a citation for cardiovascular research average citation rates : (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3104007/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3104007/) . Specifically this paper explores 'high-performing' papers with an average of 66 ± 5 citations at 10y. This is a serious topic. And making a post like you did, spreads anti-science propaganda and anti-intellectualism.
  - throwawaymaths 1y ago
    it's really low in the amyloid field, especially for a fairly well regarded lab. and i have no compunction spreading what you call "anti-science propaganda". the scientists deserve what i dish, given their behaviour. it is, if anything, anti-intellectual to attempt to discredit real criticism of the scientific system that has real rational basis with low content slogans like "anti-science" that go against the very nature of science the process. youre only circling the wagons because you know youve done fucked up.
    - searine 1y ago
      It's an average citation count. I am in no way discrediting them. If anything, I am praising the article you posted for contributing to the progress of knowledge sharing and showing how it caused change. Change brought by the very system you're saying is broken. >youre only circling the wagons because you know youve done fucked up. This narrow-view attitude is going to be the death of science in America.