Scientists Don't Read the Papers They Cite

WatertonMan writes "Very interesting and sure to be controversial study that suggests most scientists don't read the papers they cite. This means that if one paper misreads a work the misreading propagates. It's a very interesting study and has big implications for science, in my opinion. New Scientist has a good overview of the work. Given that most attention to work has been in sloppy work on the experimental side (poor methadology or outright fraud) this suggests a whole other problem. A lot of the ultimate problem is that many in research are concerned more about publishing than in solving the issues they investigate. Ideally the point both in science and in academics in general is to understand the ideas. Yet those of you who've looked up footnotes realize that actually engaging the ideas of other researchers typically falls by the wayside. Often footnotes are there simply because references are needed. Engaging others works is secondary. I've always thought that the hard sciences were more immune to that effect than the humanities. I guess not."

Comments

Well duh

[SteweyGriffin]

I wouldn't either -- those things are boring! ;-)

first post?

[SHEENmaster]

Most of my classmates don't read the papers they write. Do we hold others to a higher standard?

Just like /.

[sczimme]

...where no one reads the articles they cite. We are in good company! :-)

Re:Just like /.

[saskboy]

You beat me to my joke.
Damn, great minds think alike. Maybe that is why scientists don't need to read other's papers, because they already know what they are going to say...

Ironic

[zachlipton]

Now wouldn't it be ironic if the prople who did this study to prove that scientists don't read articles that they cite didn't read the articles that they cite?

This is ludicrous.

[Sean Trembath]

We should crush all those who make foolish mistakes, just like that guy Karl Marx says in his "Communist Manifesto" (Marx, 65)

No one has time to do anything but skim

[Junior J. Junior III]

Slashdot readers don't even read the articles they cite... What's this world coming to?

DOOM3!

[arglesnaf]

Eureka! It is so obvious!

Slashdotters are interested in Science, Slashdotters don't RTFA
Scientists are interested in Science, Scientists don't RTFA
Therefore, People who read Slashdot must be Scientists!

Now if I can only convince my employer that I need a dual procesor box with a GeForce4 for research in "Hand-eye coordination and its development as influenced by realistically rendered 3D environments: A study in vitual ordinance trajectories and avoidance"

Re:Not reading != misreading

[emarkp]

Not everybody who's ever cited "The Origin of the Species" has read the whole thing, but it certainly then does not follow that they took their understandings of its conclusions from a single other citing paper.

Of course, I'd hope if you cited it, you'd list the title correctly as The Origin of Species, not The Origin of the Species.

Just like slashdotters

[Joey7F]

I also have never known a slashdotter to read an article that they have an opinion on. Wisdom takes time, ignorance is immediate!

Which is something I think Calvin and Hobbes, or Dilbert, or Foxtrot or some other comic strip came up with...I am going to go with Calvin and Hobbes

--Joey