Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Alistair Penbroke's avatar

The self citation stuff made me laugh out loud. Incredible chutzpah and editors out to lunch as usual.

The invalid citations thing is good to finally get some hard data on. I noticed that when reading COVID papers but when I tried to tell people nobody really believed me, it seems. The idea that prestigious scientists would routinely add fake citations to their work just seemed so far out of the Overton window of possibilities that it just makes you sound crazy. Yet I find it happening all the time in public health research. And yes it's weird how some fields are more reflective than others. No surprise it's psychology that's investigating bad citations; it's weird, when the "crisis" kicked off my respect for psychology plummeted and I thought it must be one of the worst fields. In recent years my respect had been increasing again, because I learned that other fields have it even worse but don't even talk about any problems let alone try to fix them.. At least psychologists do a good impression of caring.

Expand full comment
Matt_410's avatar

Dude you're accidentally making it look like what Khaneman did was no big deal. He makes his point with a super sketchy study, but no worries because 12 years later a better one will also show that "hungry judges tend to fall back on the easier default position." ARgh?! ok, I promise to STFU about it now. I still love you.

Expand full comment
8 more comments...

No posts