It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scientists don't read even the titles of the papers they cite

page: 1
10

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 10:52 PM
link   
From a research article:


Biologically speaking, Heydari et al. (2008) observed the most common biological characteristics of serial killers and noted that they have distinctive features like; face asymmetry, irregular ears sizes, either standing out or very small, irregular nose shape, and protruding lips.

And the reference is:


Heydari, E., Arzani, N., & Hassanzadeh, J. (2008). Mantle plume: the invisible serial killer— application to the Permian–Triassic boundary mass extinction. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 264(1), 147-162.


A killer reference
edit on 31-1-2018 by vernichter because: misprint




posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 11:09 PM
link   
You have to look at the evidence yourself. This probably was a mistake, I see more misinterpretation made by them not reading the parameters of the research to see what it applies to. Also, sometimes funding sources seem to steer the interpretation of the evidence and the type of evidence collected. Scientific articles are far from real science quite often.



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 11:15 PM
link   
I think reality of some of these papers is in the eye of the beholder, or those funding the report
No surprise



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 11:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: vernichter
From a research article:


Biologically speaking, Heydari et al. (2008) observed the most common biological characteristics of serial killers and noted that they have distinctive features like; face asymmetry, irregular ears sizes, either standing out or very small, irregular nose shape, and protruding lips.

And the reference is:


Heydari, E., Arzani, N., & Hassanzadeh, J. (2008). Mantle plume: the invisible serial killer— application to the Permian–Triassic boundary mass extinction. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 264(1), 147-162. reverent.org...


A killer reference


Academic fail. I wonder if the paper was ever actually published and peer reviewed?



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 11:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
Academic fail. I wonder if the paper was ever actually published and peer reviewed?

Read the linked article.



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 11:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: vernichter

originally posted by: chr0naut
Academic fail. I wonder if the paper was ever actually published and peer reviewed?

Read the linked article.


What, read the cited document?



edit on 31/1/2018 by chr0naut because: Thanks for setting up the joke




posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Typically researchers read the relevant points within a paper, and not the whole thing, which is fine, but this is just beyond the pale stupid.



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 11:39 PM
link   
And I'd hardly consider the so called author of the erroneous article, the pinnacle of academia, let alone a 'scientist'.

Two references. One to the guy who was sent the article to review, and one to the article he found online in a preprint. Other than that I can't find any reference to the article, but I do see Heydari et al have written other articles on psychology.

I think it's just one dopey git pushing his own articles out to whichever sites will accept them. Certainly was not peer reviewed.

-- But it is now, and no one would consider it a valid thing.. lol

edit on 31-1-2018 by badw0lf because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 11:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
Typically researchers read the relevant points within a paper, and not the whole thing, which is fine, but this is just beyond the pale stupid.

Typically researchers copy citations from the lists of references used in other papers.



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: vernichter

For derivative work? Yes, that is a common practice, which is really irritating. However, not every journal will accept papers without an attached questionnaire on the sourcing and reference material to be filled out by the submitting party, that would discover this.

Some journals don't accept derivative work. Others that do, and are respectable, will publish only papers where the source materials and references are scrutinized as well.


edit on 1 2 18 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 06:42 AM
link   
a reply to: vernichter

Ah, the Permian extinction-Earth is clearly a sociopath the greatest mass murderer in history.

You can't just cite a headline, that's like folk citing headlines from The onion and claiming the following story is true. As a man of science I find this disappointing, clever headlines are meant to entice the readers, not mislead them. For instance if I were to publish an article titled 'Schrodingers' cat is out of the box' you would expect an article that has references to quantum mechanics, not the cause of the Boer war.



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: badw0lf
but I do see Heydari et al have written other articles on psychology.

What are you talking about?



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: vernichter

Its a simple referencing mistake,

In doing the final tedium of publishing, someone got lazy and and didnt double check the reference citation lifted from google scholar.



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Humans were more careful researchers when they had far less information available at their fingertips. Thus the real killers are sloths.


Sloths are arboreal mammals noted for slowness of movement and for spending most of their lives hanging upside down in the trees of the tropical rainforests of South America and Central America.
en.wikipedia.org...(film)



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: SkeptiSchism
What are you talking about? And is it sloth or sleuth?



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: punkinworks10
a reply to: vernichter

Its a simple referencing mistake,

In doing the final tedium of publishing, someone got lazy and and didnt double check the reference citation lifted from google scholar.

It is not a simple mistake. How did such reference get on the list in the first place?




top topics



 
10

log in

join