Comment by throwawaymaths
21 hours ago
https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&h...
45 citations in 10 years for a paper pointing out a major systematic flaw in almost all foundations of amyloid reserch. the system is not working.
21 hours ago
https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&h...
45 citations in 10 years for a paper pointing out a major systematic flaw in almost all foundations of amyloid reserch. the system is not working.
It was published and cited. 45 in 10 years is a reasonably okay citation count. What's the problem?
Science is slow and consensus based. Ideas are put forth, tested, and replicated. Eventually a consensus is formed. If enough new contrary evidence is collected a new consensus can form. The article you linked is not consensus changing, but it adds weight on the scale of change, and clearly it worked. Mission accomplished.
Science does not turn on a dime. It took many decades for Lynn Margulis's endosymbiosis theory to catch on, but it did. The evidence was eventually undeniable, and the consensus changed.
This AD story is just another slow consensus change. We still don't know exactly how AD works. We still know amyloid is involved somehow. We now know amyloid isn't everything.
The system works. It's just slower than you like it to be.
45 in ten years is extremely low.
That's just flat-out wrong.
It is field dependent, but 40 is about average for biomedical basic research. Here is a citation for cardiovascular research average citation rates : (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3104007/) . Specifically this paper explores 'high-performing' papers with an average of 66 ± 5 citations at 10y.
This is a serious topic. And making a post like you did, spreads anti-science propaganda and anti-intellectualism.
2 replies →