Top
Best
New

Posted by timr 1 day ago

A flawed paper in management science has been cited more than 6k times(statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu)
701 points | 365 commentspage 4
Biologist123 1 day ago||
Not enough is understood about the replication crisis in the social sciences. Or indeed in the hard sciences. I do wonder whether this is something that AI will rectify.
moolcool 1 day ago||
How would AI do anything to rectify it?
Levitz 1 day ago||
The same way it would correct typos in a text. It's just a tool, you tell it to find inconsistencies, see what results that yields, and optimize it for verification of claims.
buckle8017 1 day ago||
it will not, ai reads and "believes" the heavily cited but incorrect papers.
Dumblydorr 1 day ago||
Does it bug anyone else when your article has so many quotes it’s practically all italics? Change the formatting style so we don’t have to read pages of italic quotes
shusaku 1 day ago|
This drove me nuts, but also the authors should like get to the point about what was wrong instead of dancing around it for page after page.
steve-atx-7600 1 day ago||
The title alone is sus. I guess there are a lot of low quality papers out there in sciencey sounding fields.
rwmj 1 day ago|
The journal name ("Management Science") is a bit of a giveaway too.
ykonstant 1 day ago||
Join me in my new business endeavor where we found the Journal for Journal Science.
f30e3dfed1c9 1 day ago||
Without looking, first thought was "Are the authors from Harvard Business School?" Sure enough, two out of three are. Something's gone really wrong at that place, they just keep churning out horseshit.
zahirbmirza 1 day ago||
Could you also provide your critical appraisal of the article so this can be more of a journal club for discussion vs just a paper link? I have no expertise in this field so would be good for some insights.
motbus3 1 day ago||
I will not go into the details of the topic but the "What to do" is the most obvious thing. If a paper that is impactful cannot be backed by other works that should be a smell
indubioprorubik 1 day ago||
And thus all citing, have fatally flawed there paper if its central to the thesis, thus, he who proofs the root is rotten, should gain there funding from this point forward.
indubioprorubik 1 day ago|
I see this approach as a win win for science. Debunking bad science becomes a for profit enterprise, rigorous science becomes the only one sustainable, the paper churn gets reduced, as even producing a good one becomes a financial risk, when it becomes foundational and gets debunked later.
platz 1 day ago||
What exactly is 'sustainability'
learingsci 1 day ago|
I was young once too.

“Your email is too long.”

This whole thing is filled with “yeah, no s**” and lmao.

More seriously, pretty sure the whole ESG thing has been debunked already, and those who care to know the truth already know it.

A good rule of thumb is to be skeptical of results that make you feel good because they “prove” what you want them to.

More comments...