Comment by searine
1 day ago
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.
it's really low in the amyloid field, especially for a fairly well regarded lab.
and i have no compunction spreading what you call "anti-science propaganda". the scientists deserve what i dish, given their behaviour.
it is, if anything, anti-intellectual to attempt to discredit real criticism of the scientific system that has real rational basis with low content slogans like "anti-science" that go against the very nature of science the process. youre only circling the wagons because you know youve done fucked up.
It's an average citation count.
I am in no way discrediting them. If anything, I am praising the article you posted for contributing to the progress of knowledge sharing and showing how it caused change. Change brought by the very system you're saying is broken.
>youre only circling the wagons because you know youve done fucked up.
This narrow-view attitude is going to be the death of science in America.