科学中批评的起源、后果与可见性
The origin, consequence, and visibility of criticism in science
AI总结：
本文基于四本高影响力期刊中3000多封批评信及其目标论文的关联数据，考察科学批评的来源、影响与可见性，发现其集中针对高被引论文，却几乎不改变引用与作者表现，且传播范围有限。
摘要：
同行之间的批评在科学知识生产中发挥着至关重要的作用。然而，关于批评的起源、其对所涉论文和个人的影响，以及它在科学文献中的可见性，目前的实证证据仍然有限。在此，我们通过对受到有据可查且明确的书面批评的论文进行数据驱动分析，来填补这些空白。我们的分析使用了来自四本高影响力期刊、代表3000多封“批评信”的数据——这些论文是为明确批评另一篇论文而发表的——并且每封信都与其目标论文相关联。我们发现，收到批评信的论文不成比例地集中于其所在期刊中被引次数最高的论文，在较小程度上也集中于最具跨学科性和新颖性的论文。然而，尽管批评在科学进步中具有理论上的重要性，我们没有观察到证据表明收到批评信会影响一篇论文的引用轨迹，或影响其作者的生产力和引用影响力。批评信后果有限的一个解释是，它们常常未被注意到。事实上，我们发现，即使在发表多年之后，批评信获得的引用也只占其目标论文所获引用的很小一部分。对被批评论文与其施引论文之间主题相似性的分析表明，批评信主要由积极从事相似研究领域的研究人员引用，而被更遥远的共同体忽视。尽管批评被誉为科学的基石，但我们的发现揭示，它集中于高影响力论文，产生的可测量后果极小，并且可见性有限。这些结果对批评在科学实践中的作用和价值提出了重要问题。
英文摘要：
Critique between peers plays a vital role in the production of scientific knowledge. Yet, there is limited empirical evidence on the origins of criticism, its effects on the papers and individuals involved, and its visibility within the scientific literature. Here, we address these gaps through a data-driven analysis of papers that received substantiated and explicit written criticisms. Our analysis draws on data representing over 3,000 ``critical letters'' -- papers explicitly published to critique another -- from four high profile journals, with each letter linked to its target paper. We find that the papers receiving critical letters are disproportionately among the most highly-cited in their respective journal and, to a lesser extent, among the most interdisciplinary and novel. However, despite the theoretical importance of criticism in scientific progress, we observe no evidence that receiving a critical letter affects a paper's citation trajectory or the productivity and citation impact of its authors. One explanation for the limited consequence of critical letters is that they often go unnoticed. Indeed, we find that critical letters attract only a small fraction of the citations received by their targets, even years after publication. An analysis of topical similarity between criticized papers and their citing papers indicates that critical letters are primarily cited by researchers actively engaged in a similar field of study, whereas they are overlooked by more distant communities. Although criticism is celebrated as a cornerstone to science, our findings reveal that it is concentrated on high-impact papers, has minimal measurable consequences, and suffers from limited visibility. These results raise important questions about the role and value of critique in scientific practice.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
