Embed Notice

extremely funny to me how most bibliometric research seeking to identify "cheating" in scientific publishing uncritically participates in creating the problem it tries to resolve.

"A company makes money by selling jelly beans, and through decades of scheming has convinced my boss that the amount of jelly beans i have is how valuable i am. This company also sells a product that evaluates how many jelly beans other people have, and I have used it to conclude that other people have too many jelly beans."

like... you can just say "jelly beans are a racket and the problem is that people must acquire them at all costs to keep their job" and that could be the whole paper, but that would require like critical evaluation of the field which does not get you any jellybeans