Talk:Scientific citation

message: I don't have time right now to fix this now, but a note for anyone who comes along and uses this: This article suggests that quantity of citation is a sufficient metric of scientific merit. It's not. A lot of other factors come into play when someone in the sciences reads a paper, including the quality of the publication being cited, the credibility of the authors, and, yes even in the hard sciences prior knowledge, assumptions and commitments to various theoretical positions color the understandings that different scientists bring to the act of reading a scientific text. Good grief. Interesting reading on this topic include:
* Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science by Charles Bazerman []
* Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts by Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar
Andicat 17:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree very strongly. The number of citations is irrelevant to quality of research in a journal article reporting new results. The number is highly relevant to a survey article. Some authors pad cynically with boilerplate lists. Some increase reference count to their earlier papers by citing these. Some practice "incremental publication" -- e.g. a separate paper for each new formula on a theoretical topic, leading to a long series of papers that are repetitive, each referring to all earlier parts of the series, when the entire set of formulas could go in a single paper. I have had to referee all too many of these. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation = Scientific merit?  Uh unh

message: ==="conclusions" in line 1 of 1st paragraph"===
Not always. Often, the results of one paper lead the author of another to a conclusion that is quite different from the conclusion in the cited paper. 
==="previous" in same line===
If this implies someone other than the author of the citing paper, it is not always the case. Often, the author of one paper cites an earlier paper that she or he published.
==="justify" in same line===
I think this connotes the author of a new paper making a statement, and then mentioning statements in the cited paper to support the new statement. Quite often, a formula in one paper is cited as the starting point for mathematical derivations leading to a new formula.
==="experimental" in same line===
This seems to exclude the many thousands of theoretical papers published annually.
==="framework of influences"===
This could be construed as points of view that are not held universally, which is not quite the same as sources of information about topics mentioned in paper that author thinks some readers might not know.
==="mind set of research"===
Could this be misconstrued as prejudice?
==="help determine who conducts peer review"===
Could this be interpreted as trying to rig the process?
==="mathematically-predictive hard sciences"===
Does this exclude most synthetic organic chemistry, observation of animal behaviour and pharmaceutical drug tests, to name a few topics that are not mathematically-predictive.
==="citation is usually viewed as a necessary evil"===
I cannot think of any of my teachers, colleagues or students who were meticulous research workers taking this view. However, these number just a small fraction of the universe of research workers, and the writer of this statement may have much wider experience. However, given the possibly controversial nature of this statement, and its implicit derogation of scientific research workers, might a citation to well designed survey in support of the view be helpful?
==="model-driven 'soft' or 'human-driven' sciences"===
I believe models are used quite extensively in sciences that do not deal with social interactions, which I assume "human-driven" implies, and that models are often mathematical.
==="terminology rather than logic"===
Might some social scientists think assertions that logic is not the basis of the arguments in their papers feel this statement is unjustly pejorative?
==="citation ... establishes glossary and definitions ..."===
Could this imply writing in pseudo-esoteric gobbledygook?
==="that reviewers should keep in mind"===
Very few papers have more than 3 reviewers. Most authors hope for a somewhat larger number of readers and write for the readership at large. Suggesting that the primary aim is to influence reviewers rather than enlighten readers suggest object of publication is simply paper count (for some authors this is the case, but that is not what research is supposed to aim at).
==="the number should be few"===
The word "few" is imprecise -- is it the same for a 30 page paper as it is for a 4 page paper? Whilst authors should not pad the bibliography, there are circumstances that require 50 or 100 references -- inspection of articles in journals that have high ratings in the systems currently in use to rat them shows considerable variation in number of references.
==="name-space clash"===
I do not understand what is meant here. There is a link to an article with this phrase as its title in Wikipedia, but the article and its discussion are empty. Is it considered responsible to link to an empty page for clarification? A web search did not clarify, beyond suggesting the term is used in programming with a connotation that is completely irrelevant.
==="inexact application of abstractions to concretes"===
I do not understand. Should Wikipedia entries be so esoteric that a working scientist who has taught at major universities and published in a range of journals on specialized and inter-disciplinary topics be without any idea of what a statement in the entry means?
===relevance and accuracy of mention of Muslim and Roman Catholic practices===
I think it best to exercize restraint and refrain from comment in these. But if religion is being introduced, why no mention of referencing systems in commentaries that are developed on religious texts over the centuries in other faiths. And if the scope is extended beyond science, why no mention of referencing in legal and legislative documents. 
===patent references===
When acting as an expert witness in patent litigation I have been instructed that for someone who is not an attorney to express an opinion on the legality of a patent constitutes "practicing law without a license". But I think I may mention that patents are also read by experts who are neither the inventors or attorneys.
==="... all other scientists ..."===
Does this mean avoid citing other people to prevent them being appreciated?
===links to words in common use===
Is it helpful and/or recommended Wikipedia practice provide links to articles about words in common use? I think there over 30 here.
Sorry my coding experience does not let me make subsections in table of contents. Am concerned if I try to fix this I may lose what I have typed and am pressed for time. Likewise about how print has shrunk. I assume if anyone wants to read this they will know how to enlarge. I will try later after making sure it has been saved.
Michael P. Barnett (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Questionable usage of particular words and phrases in the article

message: Is it helpful and/or recommended Wikipedia practice provide links to articles about words in common use? I think there over 30 here.
Sorry my coding experience does not let me make subsections in table of contents. Am concerned if I try to fix this I may lose what I have typed and am pressed for time. Likewise about how print has shrunk. I assume if anyone wants to read this they will know how to enlarge. I will try later after making sure it has been saved.
Michael P. Barnett (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: links to words in common use

message: Please can someone tell me why my subsections are not, and why the print shrank. Thanks,
Michael P. Barnett (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: To make a subsection, use the code
===Title of subheading===
I don't know where your print shrank unless you save the page. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Although a bit unorthodox, I established all your sub-points into sub-sections of your original thread. Many points you made in your assessment seem valid and maybe could be copy edited for clarity. By all means, you can edit this encyclopedia as well, and any bold attempts at improving it are welcome. Cheers. My76Strat 02:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Help request