> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of The Fool > Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 10:26 AM
... > The pattern suggests that 45 scientists, who might well have read the > paper, made an error when they cited it. Then 151 others copied their > misprints without reading the original. So for at least 77 per cent of > the 196 misprinted citations, no one read the paper. That's a dubious conclusion, IMO. Think about how researchers first discover that a paper exists. They're often discovered as citations in other papers, so researchers copy the interesting citations before they've had a chance to read the papers they cite. All this study indicates to me is normal behavior: citations are often copied *before* a paper is read. The more likely mistake, IMO, was the failure to check if the original citation contained errors. Damned statistics. Nick _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
