Massive citations to misleading methods and research tools: Matthew effect, quotation error and citation copying
Research methods and tools comprise a lion’s share among the most cited papers across science . Methodological tools are essential to make discoveries, assess them, organize our knowledge, and understand which information is valid and useful. Many methods and research tools are proposed, but few become widely utilized. These are not always the best. For example, null-hypothesis significance testing with reporting of p-values is embedded in millions of papers , despite being a poor inferential method for most . The factors that shape which methodological paper gets widely cited are poorly known. However, perhaps methods that are simple and easy to use (or misuse), and those that address major needs are more prone to become popular. Conversely, esoteric and convoluted tools, those that are not readily practicable, and those that have relevance only to rare circumstances are unlikely to become citation classics.
Simplicity is a desirable feature, but oversimplification is not....
- 6.Simkin MV, Roychowdhury VP. Read before you cite! Complex Syst. 2003;14:269–74.Google Scholar
- 9.Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality if nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. http://www.ohrica/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxfordasp. 2009.
- 27.Quan W, Chen B, Shu F. Publish or impoverish: an investigation of the monetary reward system of science in China (1999–2016). Aslib J Inf Manag. 2017;69:1–18.Google Scholar