Maybe that's why it gets cited? People starting with an answer and backfilling?

We’ve developed a “leaning tower of science.” Someday, it’s going to fall.

So 6000 people cited a paper, and either didn’t properly read it (IMO that's academic dishonesty) or weren't able to determine that the methdology was infeasible.

No real surprise. I'm pretty sure most academics spend little time critically reading sources and just scan to see if it broadly supports their point (like an undergrad would). Or just cite a source if another paper says it supports a point.

I've heard the most brutal thing an examiner can do in a viva vocce is to ask what a cited paper is about, lol.

The gatekeepers were able to convince the American public of such heinous things like circumcision at birth based on "science" and now they're having to deal with the corruption. People like RFK Jr. are able to be put into top positions because what they're spewing has no less scientific merit than what's accepted and recommended. The state of scientific literature is incredibly sad and mainly a factor of politics and money than of scientific evidence.

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.

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

The title alone is sus. I guess there are a lot of low quality papers out there in sciencey sounding fields.

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.

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