Talk:Scientific citation

Citation = Scientific merit? Uh unh

I don't have time right now to fix this now, but a note for anyone who comes along and uses this: This article suggests that quantity of citation is a sufficient metric of scientific merit. It's not. A lot of other factors come into play when someone in the sciences reads a paper, including the quality of the publication being cited, the credibility of the authors, and, yes even in the hard sciences prior knowledge, assumptions and commitments to various theoretical positions color the understandings that different scientists bring to the act of reading a scientific text. Good grief. Interesting reading on this topic include:

• Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science by Charles Bazerman [[1]]

• Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts by Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar

Andicat 17:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree very strongly. The number of citations is irrelevant to quality of research in a journal article reporting new results. The number is highly relevant to a survey article. Some authors pad cynically with boilerplate lists. Some increase reference count to their earlier papers by citing these. Some practice "incremental publication" -- e.g. a separate paper for each new formula on a theoretical topic, leading to a long series of papers that are repetitive, each referring to all earlier parts of the series, when the entire set of formulas could go in a single paper. I have had to referee all too many of these. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

This article on citations needs more of what it's about

That's right, it's ironic but true that this article about citations contains....hardly any!! Want to add some citations someone? I would especially focus on the many bold claims. NuclearWinner 23:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I find the distinction between the "hard" and "soft" sciences to be misleading and therefore uninformative. The distinction that, I believe, should be made instead is between individual books, articles, etc. that are highly scientific and those that are less scientific or even unscientific. The criterion for "scientific" should be determined on the basis of method of inquiry, certainly not on the basis of subject matter. It is the use of the scientific method of inquiry alone which determines whether or not a specific reported investigation is truly scientific in the modern sense of "science." Thus, some articles in sociology will rise to the top as being more scientific than some in chemistry, for example, if they present greater rigor in precisely testing hypotheses which consist, in essence, of variables that are precisely and empirically or operationally defined. As another example, the realm of contemporary theoretical physics, once considered the epitome of "hard" science, has become so highly conceptual and even imaginative, that one hungers for the occasional points of contact with the familiar empirical world, long respected as the starting point and ultimate test of any scientific inquiry.

Nothing is more infuriating to those seeking of sound knowledge regarding mental disorders, for example, than the presumption that a published articles by a psychiatrist will, ipso facto, be more scientific than one on the same subject by a psychologist. That would be the result of a prejudice based on the credulity and hunger for authority of lay readers or even the comparative socioeconomic status of the two writers. If one reads widely in the relevant literature, it will quickly become clear that, in some cases, the experimental method is far more rigorously adhered to, in many but not all cases, by researchers with Ph.D. degrees than those with M.D. degrees. The fact that one must attain a certain mastery of fields long known to be sciences, such as chemistry and zoology, in order to become a physician is no guarantee that every physician is a scientist, particularly when mastery of logic and statistics may be the more essential qualification at the moment.

There is also a historical chronology as to when the various fields of human inquiry have proven themselves to be sciences. Chemistry and human anatomy, for example, received that status many centuries after astronomy and physics. In the ancient world, astronomy was understood to be a science requiring sustained and repeated observation and methodological rigor many centuries before chemistry, even though astronomy had to be rediscovered, first by Arabs and then by Europeans, in the reawakening of Western humanity following the Dark Ages. At that point, astronomy had to compete with astrology, and it won out largely through its use of scientific method, which astrology lacked. The struggle to pull various fields of human thought into the realm of science continues, as local school boards contemplate the origin of life and of our own species.

In conclusion, the traditional notion of the "hard" and "soft" sciences should be superseded by a distinction based on the degree to which any individual effort to build knowledge has utilized the scientific method by which knowledge is attained, rather than by the subject matter studied. Timothy Ray —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wicker2 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting, and I mostly agree, so next time, can you add your eloquence and effort to the article itself rather than this talk page? Just an idea for you.  :-) NuclearWinner (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree strongly with the comment about what is scientific, and that it should be incorporated in an actual Wikipedia article. I am new to putting information into Wikipedia (and correcting misinformation) and am weltering in the morass of crosslinked articles that I reached in an effort to find why references in the style [5], [7--9], [15, page 37] are banned from Wikipedia. I am trying to work up from the leaves of the tree, commenting as I go. The word "scientific" is abused so much and equated with misuse of statistics (I encountered this with the advertizing industry 50 years ago). Personal authority has played an excessive part in scientific publication and acceptance. Great as Linus Pauling was, I remember a review of a book that expressed relief that it contained no justification of a statement by "Pauling says". The American Physical Society had a "Green cheese" session at annual meetings a long time ago -- maybe green cheese is now acceptable mainstream. And the recent scandals where scientists of eminence agreed to being named as coauthors of papers which cited their work and were fraudulent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael P. Barnett

Questionable usage of particular words and phrases in the article

"conclusions" in line 1 of 1st paragraph"

Not always. Often, the results of one paper lead the author of another to a conclusion that is quite different from the conclusion in the cited paper.

"previous" in same line

If this implies someone other than the author of the citing paper, it is not always the case. Often, the author of one paper cites an earlier paper that she or he published.

"justify" in same line

I think this connotes the author of a new paper making a statement, and then mentioning statements in the cited paper to support the new statement. Quite often, a formula in one paper is cited as the starting point for mathematical derivations leading to a new formula.

"experimental" in same line

This seems to exclude the many thousands of theoretical papers published annually.

"framework of influences"

This could be construed as points of view that are not held universally, which is not quite the same as sources of information about topics mentioned in paper that author thinks some readers might not know.

"mind set of research"

Could this be misconstrued as prejudice?

"help determine who conducts peer review"

Could this be interpreted as trying to rig the process?

"mathematically-predictive hard sciences"

Does this exclude most synthetic organic chemistry, observation of animal behaviour and pharmaceutical drug tests, to name a few topics that are not mathematically-predictive.

"citation is usually viewed as a necessary evil"

I cannot think of any of my teachers, colleagues or students who were meticulous research workers taking this view. However, these number just a small fraction of the universe of research workers, and the writer of this statement may have much wider experience. However, given the possibly controversial nature of this statement, and its implicit derogation of scientific research workers, might a citation to well designed survey in support of the view be helpful?

"model-driven 'soft' or 'human-driven' sciences"

I believe models are used quite extensively in sciences that do not deal with social interactions, which I assume "human-driven" implies, and that models are often mathematical.

"terminology rather than logic"

Might some social scientists think assertions that logic is not the basis of the arguments in their papers feel this statement is unjustly pejorative?

"citation ... establishes glossary and definitions ..."

Could this imply writing in pseudo-esoteric gobbledygook?

"that reviewers should keep in mind"

Very few papers have more than 3 reviewers. Most authors hope for a somewhat larger number of readers and write for the readership at large. Suggesting that the primary aim is to influence reviewers rather than enlighten readers suggest object of publication is simply paper count (for some authors this is the case, but that is not what research is supposed to aim at).

"the number should be few"

The word "few" is imprecise -- is it the same for a 30 page paper as it is for a 4 page paper? Whilst authors should not pad the bibliography, there are circumstances that require 50 or 100 references -- inspection of articles in journals that have high ratings in the systems currently in use to rat them shows considerable variation in number of references.

"name-space clash"

I do not understand what is meant here. There is a link to an article with this phrase as its title in Wikipedia, but the article and its discussion are empty. Is it considered responsible to link to an empty page for clarification? A web search did not clarify, beyond suggesting the term is used in programming with a connotation that is completely irrelevant.

"inexact application of abstractions to concretes"

I do not understand. Should Wikipedia entries be so esoteric that a working scientist who has taught at major universities and published in a range of journals on specialized and inter-disciplinary topics be without any idea of what a statement in the entry means?

relevance and accuracy of mention of Muslim and Roman Catholic practices

I think it best to exercize restraint and refrain from comment in these. But if religion is being introduced, why no mention of referencing systems in commentaries that are developed on religious texts over the centuries in other faiths. And if the scope is extended beyond science, why no mention of referencing in legal and legislative documents.

patent references

When acting as an expert witness in patent litigation I have been instructed that for someone who is not an attorney to express an opinion on the legality of a patent constitutes "practicing law without a license". But I think I may mention that patents are also read by experts who are neither the inventors or attorneys.

"... all other scientists ..."

Does this mean avoid citing other people to prevent them being appreciated?

links to words in common use

Is it helpful and/or recommended Wikipedia practice provide links to articles about words in common use? I think there over 30 here.

Sorry my coding experience does not let me make subsections in table of contents. Am concerned if I try to fix this I may lose what I have typed and am pressed for time. Likewise about how print has shrunk. I assume if anyone wants to read this they will know how to enlarge. I will try later after making sure it has been saved.

Michael P. Barnett (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Help request

Please can someone tell me why my subsections are not, and why the print shrank. Thanks, Michael P. Barnett (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC) • contribs) 15:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

To make a subsection, use the code

===Title of subheading===

I don't know where your print shrank unless you save the page. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Although a bit unorthodox, I established all your sub-points into sub-sections of your original thread. Many points you made in your assessment seem valid and maybe could be copy edited for clarity. By all means, you can edit this encyclopedia as well, and any bold attempts at improving it are welcome. Cheers. My76Strat 02:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)