Research that is less likely to be true is cited more

[Lollipop2]

Well I’ll be...welcome to “science” of today. And you ask us to trust you? LoL. Not.

A new replication crisis: Research that is less likely to be true is cited more

Papers that cannot be replicated are cited 153 times more because their findings are interesting

A new replication crisis: Research that is less likely to be true is cited more

Papers in leading psychology, economic and science journals that fail to replicate and therefore are less likely to be true are often the most cited papers in academic research, according to a new study.

www.sciencedaily.com

 

[Missenger]

Marta Serra-Garcia, Associate Professor of Economics and Strategy

Serra-Garcia conducts research in behavioral and experimental economics. Her research focuses on how individuals acquire and transmit information and how this in turn affects their preferences and behavior. Among others, her research studies how the desire to preserve a positive self-image shapes individuals’ ethical decision-making, such as lying and charitable giving. Serra-Garcia has been published in numerous journals including Management Science, Psychological Science, the Journal of the European Economic Association, and Games and Economic Behavior. She has also been recognized as the 2020 Best 40 under 40 MBA Professors.


Prior to coming to the Rady School, Serra-Garcia was an assistant professor at the University of Munich. Serra-Garcia earned her Ph.D. and M.Sc. in Economics at Tilburg University. She earned a B.A. in Business Administration from the Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona.

Uri Gneezy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Uri Hezkia Gneezy (born June 6, 1967) is the Epstein/Atkinson Endowed Chair in Behavioral Economics and Professor of Economics & Strategy at the University of California, San Diego's Rady School of Management.[1]

Education and career

Gneezy studied economics at Tel Aviv University, where he obtained a BA degree and graduated with honors. He later got his MA and PhD (1997) at the CentER for Economic Research at Tilburg University in Tilburg, the Netherlands.[1]

Gneezy, who frequently contributes to the Freakonomics website,[2] is known for designing simple, clever experiments to demonstrate behavioral phenomena that open up new research directions in behavioral economics. Examples include his work on when and how incentives work, deception, gender differences in competitiveness, and behavioral pricing.[3] Gneezy and coauthor John A. List have published a book on the hidden motives and undiscovered economics of everyday life, titled "The Why Axis."[4]

In 2014, Gneezy cofounded Gneezy Consulting, a business consultation company that specializes in behavioral economics.

Epstein-linked jew from Tel Aviv reads like a joke.

 

[yerrag]

Well I’ll be...welcome to “science” of today. And you ask us to trust you? LoL. Not.

A new replication crisis: Research that is less likely to be true is cited more

Papers that cannot be replicated are cited 153 times more because their findings are interesting

A new replication crisis: Research that is less likely to be true is cited more

Papers in leading psychology, economic and science journals that fail to replicate and therefore are less likely to be true are often the most cited papers in academic research, according to a new study.

www.sciencedaily.com

Thanks for confirming what I suspect.

If not for land mines killing immediately, published scientific studies could be considered more dangerous.

The irony is that the more educated one is, the more one believes the experts who publish such studies. Logic and reason is left for the less educated.

Can you fault me if I have developed a severe allergic reaction to anything called *evidence-based?"

 

[Elderflower j58]

<iframe width="640" height="360" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="border: none;" src="
View: https://www.bitchute.com/embed/KcuXFzkw4Wcd/
"></iframe>


Not sure if this has already been posted, even if it has this thread is its natural home.
Some jaw dropping info.

 

[yerrag]

<iframe width="640" height="360" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="border: none;" src="
View: https://www.bitchute.com/embed/KcuXFzkw4Wcd/
"></iframe>


Not sure if this has already been posted, even if it has this thread is its natural home.
Some jaw dropping info.

Nice! What is especially off-putting is the use of that term tricks the mind into thinking that other modalities of medicine are not based on evidence.

But the use of such a term after a while backfires on its chief users, as it first loses its true meaning, and then it morphs into a derided term, its use to be avoided for the baggage of deceit that it carries.

 

[Lollipop2]

<iframe width="640" height="360" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="border: none;" src="
View: https://www.bitchute.com/embed/KcuXFzkw4Wcd/
"></iframe>


Not sure if this has already been posted, even if it has this thread is its natural home.
Some jaw dropping info.

Excellent. Need to rewatch this.

 

[Amazoniac]

- Do rebuttals affect future science?

In theory, rebuttals play a vital role in the progression of science, pointing out flaws in published articles, and ensuring that science self-corrects. However, the effect of rebuttals has not been tested in practice. We examined seven high-profile original articles and their rebuttals, finding that original articles were cited 17 times more than rebuttals, and that annual citation numbers were unaffected by rebuttals. When citations did not mention rebuttals, 95% accepted the thesis of the original article uncritically, and support remained high over time. On the rare occasions when rebuttals were cited, the citing papers on average had neutral views of the original article, and 8% actually believed that the rebuttal agreed with the original article. Overall, only 5% of all citations were critical of the original paper. Our results point to an urgent need to change current publishing models to ensure that rebuttals are prominently linked to original articles.

 

[rei]

<iframe width="640" height="360" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="border: none;" src="
View: https://www.bitchute.com/embed/KcuXFzkw4Wcd/
"></iframe>


Not sure if this has already been posted, even if it has this thread is its natural home.
Some jaw dropping info.

"who's looking out for scientific integrity?"

As ridiculous as it sounds, it's who we call conspiracy theorists. Medical doctors are the last ones to do so as they have their future career hostage.

 

[Lollipop2]

- Do rebuttals affect future science?

​

This is good @Amazoniac. Troubling and makes a strong case.