Terminarch

Terminarch t1_j5gyedj wrote

Reply to comment by coffeesharkpie in How Covid-19 vaccines succeeded in saving a million US lives, in charts by ILikeNeurons

>Did you strongly suggest a rejection to the editor?

On what authority, an appeal to honesty? That failed when they wrote the formula.

Seriously, I don't think it was a mistake. Read their conclusion and you'll get the picture. It's one thing to do a rough estimate, but pay attention to their language and tone there. This is meant to push an agenda. I believe it was intentional fraud.

>there is a notion that bad or devise papers have a higher chance of being cited

Source? That would be interesting to look into.

>number of citations is a pretty bad metric to judge the quality of research

Yeah. That wasn't my point. It's not about quality of the paper, it's about quality of the scientific field to uncritically build upon this (and similar) as a compromised foundation.

It is however possible that you're right, that many times it was cited in refutation. I never actually checked.

1

Terminarch t1_j5dpftk wrote

Reply to comment by zyhhuhog in How Covid-19 vaccines succeeded in saving a million US lives, in charts by ILikeNeurons

Reporting for duty!

Anyway, this reminds me of a study I reviewed recently. Literally it estimated lives saved from number of DEATHS, vaccination rate, and assumed vaccine effectiveness. When double the people died it gave credit for double lives saved. Fucking brilliant.

And if I'm remembering correctly it was cited on Google Scholar over 60 times in a year. What does that tell you about the quality of "science"?

−8