Slashdot Mirror
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."
The study seemed to be checking for typos in citations. Just because a scientist has copied the text of a (wrongly typed) citation does not mean s/he has not read the paper. There is no law that says someone writing a paper has to type up every citation they make from scratch.
This paper takes some very simple statistical models and turns them into what seem to be totally unfounded generalizations about the way science is done. Taking their statistical conclusions at face value, we find that 77% of the people who cited the paper didn't read it in its original form. But, they go on to conclude that a) the only source of information about the paper could have come from a single other paper (namely, the paper with the original citation), and b) misunderstandings about the conclusions drawn by a paper will spread "like wildfire." They do not actually demonstrate this latter conclusion, and don't show that any of the papers actually did misconstrue the science in the original paper.
This is because heavily cited papers become very widely known and understood. 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.
They end their article with a smug admonition to "read before you cite." These guys sound like the guy with a clean desk who never gets anything done complaining about all the clutter on your desk. Smug social scientists criticizing physicists for their lack of citation rigor does not impress me. There are plenty of better reasons to criticize physicists this year (e.g., Ninov and Schoen). This one seems a bit silly.
* mild mannered physics grad student by day *
* daring code hacker by night *
http://www.silent-tristero.com
Um, OK. I'll try it:
/. headline
1. Read
2. Form angry, uninformed opinion.
3. Post
4. ????
5. Karma!
Doing science for the money is like having sex for
the exercise. There are many other ways to make considerably more money that require
far less work. The raison d'etre of science is the joy
of discovery; no one spends 6-8 years in higher education
getting a PhD just for the paycheck. People do it
because they love it.
As far as scientists faking results, yes, it happens.
However, the beauty of the scientific method is that
it is self-policing. Anyone can read the journals;
anyone can write the editors of said journals and
report anything that's not above board. As for papers
not being read in the first place, well, let's hop on
the Magic School Bus and take a quick tour of the
scientific publishing process.
First, write the paper. Then, submit it to either a
journal or a conference. In either case, the pool
of available papers will be divided over the number
of people on the review board of the respective
journal/conference, so a bunch of people read a few
papers. Once here, the aforementioned paper is either
rejected or accepted. If accepted, it is published.
After the paper is published, other scientists read
the paper. If it is useful for their work, they may
incorporate some of the ideas into their own work,
at which point, they'll test the idea that they're
borrowing to see if it makes sense.
If it does make sense, they'll use it. If not, they'll
tell the whole world, discrediting the work and
embarassing the original author. Thus there is plenty
of pressure to do good science. The people doing legitimate
work far outnumber the charlatans just submitting
gibberish.
Matt
Sometimes all someone wants is a certain result from a paper. Reading and understanding the full reasoning behind a result rather than the result itself may mean the difference between an afternoon of work and 3 weeks of work. Multiply that by the number of citations a paper has, and a hapless but well-meaning scientist would spend all their time digesting their citations rather than publishing papers and would soon be relieved of their position.
Understanding the details behind cited results is certainly very important, but in the real world there are real tradeoffs that researchers constantly have to evaluate professionally regarding how much time they spend understanding and in how much detail they understand any given result.
This posting is interesting, certainly, but it is not news.
-- My choice of computing platform is a symbol of my individuality and belief in personal freedom.
...most scientists don't read the papers they cite. This means that if one paper misreads a work the misreading propagates.
If they're not reading the papers, why would it propagate?
I've grown tired of hearing members of the so-called 'medical' profession lecture me on how 'risky' my 'high-protein' diet is (seems most doctors are functionally deaf and/or immune to learning anything at all from a non-doctor). I gotta wonder how much more 'risky' my MODERATE protein is than being more than 100 lbs overweight. Seems doctors only read the conclusions of studies, and not the actual studies. I have come to the conclusion (based on my personal experience, and comparing notes with several dozen others in the same situation) that the typical 'research' paper follows these steps:
1: Write down a conclusion
2: Write a paper supporting that conclusion
3: Do some 'research', carefully structured to support that conclusion
4: Discount or discard any data that doesn't support that conclusion
5: Get the paper reviewed by a group of associates that agree with your conclusion
6: Publish the paper in some mutual-admiration society journal
My favorite along these lines is one entitled "Type 2 Diabetics Benefit From Reducing Intake Of Animal Protein". If you read the summary very carefully, you will see that the 'researchers' removed the SUGAR from the diet, and then concluded, from the resulting health improvements, that animal protein causes type II diabetes. (!!) This is, unfortunately, typical of what passes for 'science' in the study of diet.
Concealed Handgun License Courses in Plano, Texas
As someone who has written a number of scientific papers (and yes, sometimes, but not often, cited articles that I haven't read), I think there are a couple of reason contributing to the problem:
1) Cost of journals -- often there is an article that ought to be cited in your work (because it was published before yours, and is related), but is in a journal unavailable at your university's library. There are thousands of journals, and their high costs (often thousands of dollars a year each) means that no library can have them all. But why not simply ignore an article you haven't read? Read on.
2) Pride of Reviewers -- When a scientific article is sent to a journal, it is passed on to several researchers who are doing similar work for peer review. While it would nice to think that reviewers are not so petty, the fact is, if you haven't cited their work, they might get angry and reject the paper. So, authors feel that it is better safe than sorry and cite freely.
A lot of the ultimate problem is that many in research are concerned more about publishing than in solving the issues they investigate.
The problem is that the higher-ups in the university system essentially mandate a certain number of peer reviewed publications for promotions, hell even to keep your job if you're not tenured. This, I feel, is part of the problem in that we're pushed so hard to get X number of publications per year. In a sense it's necessary to weed out the smucks (anyone can get a Ph.D. nowadays), but it also can cause the quality of the research to decline. The whole quality vs. quantity argument.
Just my $0.02.
A research library used to serve a double role, both providing access to resources and in some sense backing up them up, but with many libraries moving their journal subscriptions from paper to web-based electronic ones, should the journal go away for some reason these resources have a much grater chance of simply disappearing.
Electronic papers are great---they allow for better searches, easier distribution, and let me avoid peeling my butt out of my chair to go to the library. However, libraries really must endeavor to keep local copies of as much of their inventory as possible.
Also, sometimes the relevant portion of an paper can be summed up in one sentence, or in the abstract.
Of course, which is why the article sort of misses the point. For instance, if I were to mention offhand in an introduction that protein synthesis by the ribosome is done by catalytic RNA, there is an obvious reference to cite [Nissen et al. (2000) Science etc.]. I know this is correct, it's been extensively covered, and I have a copy lying around somewhere, but I've never actually read it all the way through. You can just look at the abstract and that's plenty for these purposes- if I were extensively discussing the mechanism I'd need to thoroughly read the paper, but for an introduction I just need to mention the proper source.
Now, I could be making an error- what if they just pulled something out of their ass, or used sloppy methodology? Usually, people will just say "if it's good enough for the editors (and peer reviewers) of Science, who am I to argue?"
What it all boils down to is partial dishonesty. I wish poeple would take credit for what they actually do. Perhaps a list of authors should be annotated indictating very honestly the degree and type of participation. Then you might have more people choosing not to be named.
Watched presentation; corrected spelling in three places.
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
I'm a PhD student in Literature (I know...) and although there's definitely a bit of a problem in the Humanities with people not responding to others in a useful dialogue at times, and there is certainly the same "publish or perish" imperative, it is really a *huge* faux pas to not have read the entirity of the paper/book you cite. In my field, you can easily be discredited for your entire academic carrer for that sort of thing.
Incidentally, it seems to me that the peer review process that exists in both the humanities and the sciences ought to catch these people who are completely misreading their source material. If neither the people writing the papers nor the reviewers are familiar with secondary materials, a real problem exists.
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them." -Isaac Asimov
Look, as someone who's written scientific papers, the claims in the article are not only false, but indicative of poor science themselves. They're making the classic experimental stats mistake. Namely, copying and pasting citations from other sources is *absolutely uncorrelated* with whether those papers have been read by the author.
i es
Formatting citations is fussy, tedious, and annoying. You have to look up the page numbers in the journal (which you may not even have in these days of online papers), figure out who the publisher was, the issue or journal number.
I read every single one of the papers I've ever cited. But it was rare that I ever typed in a citation from scratch. Usually you get them either from an on-line citation database, from the bibtex entry helpfully supplied on the cited author's web page (scientists like being cited!) or, yes, by typing out a citation from a printed paper.
In any given field, usually some kind-hearted soul starts collecting a database of citations for others to use. For instance, here's one here:
http://www.helios32.com/resources.htm#Bibliograph
Have a look; you'll soon twig to why people don't type these in from scratch.
Creating the citation all over from scratch when it's right there in front of you is about as pointless as adding a link to a web page by retyping some monstrous 200-character URL. Just because you copy & pasted a link doesn't mean you didn't read the article did you? (I guess slashdot is the wrong place for that particular piece of rhetoric.)
I'm disappointed in New Scientist. The pissy little diatribe about science in the story submission is par for the course. Please, leave the pontificating to people who have a clue.
In fact, how about a retraction? (Ha ha ha ha!)
A.
I am not a scientist, I am just a humble student (or rather ex-student, I graduated this year). When I wrote my project report I was asked by my supervisor to get in references to papers X, Y and Z. So I ended up putting in a few fairly meaningless or irrelevant sentences just to cite the correct paper. Of course here the aim is to get marks, not to get kudos or whatever else real researchers write for, so it's not really a problem.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com