curious - as i have only worked in the data pipeline side of research and cohort generation - is it not ok for a researcher to cite their prior work if said work is post peer review?
It’s normal to cite your own work if the new paper is a continuation of that research. A references or three is normal and expected.
When somebody publishes a bullshit paper that is eventually withdrawn, every subsequent paper citing the fraudulent work can also be withdrawn as being unreliable.
A sign it’s all bullshit is when you see the majority of the citations for the paper from the same author. This usually doesn’t pass peer review anymore. In hyperspecialized fields with few researchers, they commonly get a little creative on the introduction section to include other authors.
When somebody publishes a bullshit paper that is eventually withdrawn, every subsequent paper citing the fraudulent work can also be withdrawn as being unreliable.
It depends on how foundational it is, of course. If you could swap it for a dozen other papers, nobody cares. If you’re continuing the work from a retracted paper, you’re fucked (but then, you probably would have noticed some errors pretty soon anyway).
I have a friend who basically ran a series of experiments based on a paper that was complete bullshit. And like any good biochemist, he figured he was screwing up, or the equipment was faulty, or the substrate was more cursed than usual. Lucky for him, after weeks of smashing into a brick wall of failure, he started asking other people, who also kept failing and then they figured it out.
curious - as i have only worked in the data pipeline side of research and cohort generation - is it not ok for a researcher to cite their prior work if said work is post peer review?
It’s normal to cite your own work if the new paper is a continuation of that research. A references or three is normal and expected.
When somebody publishes a bullshit paper that is eventually withdrawn, every subsequent paper citing the fraudulent work can also be withdrawn as being unreliable.
A sign it’s all bullshit is when you see the majority of the citations for the paper from the same author. This usually doesn’t pass peer review anymore. In hyperspecialized fields with few researchers, they commonly get a little creative on the introduction section to include other authors.
It depends on how foundational it is, of course. If you could swap it for a dozen other papers, nobody cares. If you’re continuing the work from a retracted paper, you’re fucked (but then, you probably would have noticed some errors pretty soon anyway).
I have a friend who basically ran a series of experiments based on a paper that was complete bullshit. And like any good biochemist, he figured he was screwing up, or the equipment was faulty, or the substrate was more cursed than usual. Lucky for him, after weeks of smashing into a brick wall of failure, he started asking other people, who also kept failing and then they figured it out.
makes sense! thanks for the reply.