Discussion in 'Phoenix Rising Articles' started by Phoenix Rising Team, May 12, 2012.
View the Post on the Blog
Someone has been busy with their calculator. Really interesting work, thank you, and I think it does give a good measure of who has been most influential in the field.
Just a pity it does not mention "who's right" - SW we know was not (despite his volume of papers) - surely influence in ME/CFS - the disease itself - lies with all the researchers finding all the pathologies and advancing understanding of the disease, not a tally of/dependant on how many papers published or quoted.
I think one reason the psych lobby (I can't bring myself to call them researchers) "score" so high is that they cite each other like crazy. It becomes very circular and self-referential. And they certainly do not cite studies showing biological abnormalities, which refute their pet theories.
Good scientific papers will cite studies whose results conflict with the author's thesis, and discuss possible explanations for the disparity. Good scientists, when forming a hypothesis, try to find out that fits all the facts (or at least they mention and try to explain the outliers). What bugs me most about the psych model proponents is that they practice junk science. Anything that doesn't fit their theory --and that's a huge body of knowledge-- they simply ignore and don't mention. They have no respect for the scientific process. Add to that the fact that they have received most of the research funding and it's no wonder their papers are cited most.
But being highly cited is not the same thing as advancing the state of knowledge. Ultimately it will be the researchers who unravel the mystery of this disease who are influential. The obstructionists with their junk science, if they are remembered at all, will be quoted as examples of the quaint and backward, the way today we look at those who said that educating women would cause their uteruses to shrink. Unfortunately, in the meantime they use their influence to do a lot of damage.
I quite agree ixchelkali. Well said.
I think that's a very good point...much more money has been spent on physiological research in the US I would guess that no single subject has gotten more research than CBT...on the other hand the biological studies are spread all over the place...a bit on the HPA axis here, a bit on natural killer cells here - the body of work most of the fields of research is quite low...
I would also guess that CBT researchers have been pretty good at getting published in high attention Journals as well - that makes a big difference.
I don't know why that piece came out in italics...that's kind of weird..
Thanks for this Cort. Its a very interesting read.
I think everyone knew who'd had that most influence on the field and this proves it.
I am interested in what scientists do for ME, since that's the disease I suffer from. CFS is not a disease.
Some scientists with a significant impact on our understanding of ME are: Baraniuk, Chia, Hyde, Kuratsune, Suhadolnik.
I would not call Gijs (not: Gus) Bleijenberg a scientist.
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.