Read on Twitter
This paper has been cited 1163 times, except it DOES NOT EXIST.
This 'paper' was used in a style guide as a citation example, was included in some papers by accident, and then propagated from there, illustrating how some authors don't read *titles* let alone abstracts or papers
This 'paper' was used in a style guide as a citation example, was included in some papers by accident, and then propagated from there, illustrating how some authors don't read *titles* let alone abstracts or papers
I learnt this from reading this super interesting book from @GarethLeng and @RhodriLeng https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/matter-facts
Here’s a blogpost from @AWHarzing on the original discovery of this phantom paper https://harzing.com/publications/white-papers/the-mystery-of-the-phantom-reference
And here’s a deep dive from @RhodriLeng on how this phantom paper keeps getting cited https://www.the-matter-of-facts.com/post/the-phantom-reference-and-the-propagation-of-error
And here’s a deep dive from @RhodriLeng on how this phantom paper keeps getting cited https://www.the-matter-of-facts.com/post/the-phantom-reference-and-the-propagation-of-error
And here’s a @hertzpodcast episode with @seanrife on issues with using the raw number of citations as a marker of article quality https://twitter.com/hertzpodcast/status/1107548929145614336?s=20
Here’s an even earlier discovery of the phantom paper, by @kellymce https://twitter.com/kellymce/status/1314662676736348160?s=20
