Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

dr_keks t1_iwqf2nz wrote

Nice concept, but didn't work for me at all. My questions came up with irrelevant answers and papers. Worse than if I'd just put in some keywords into Google scholar and taking the first hit.

15

JoshN1986 OP t1_iwqngs1 wrote

You can also do a keyword-based search, which can be a lot more comprehensive and in many cases will be better. If you can share the questions where it didn't work well, that would help us make improvements.

−4

velifer t1_iwqqv30 wrote

Since it's an actively harmful app with a core purpose to subvert critical review of scientific papers and only pull decontextualized snippets, the best thing you could do would be take it down.

This is a tool that is designed only to streamline confirmation bias.

20

JoshN1986 OP t1_iwqreg9 wrote

I disagree with your harsh assessment and really your tone. We show citation context, which makes it easy to see how and why a paper has been cited in the literature, including if it has been supported or contrasted by other studies.

With scite, you can see if a paper has been supported/challenged.
Without scite, you only see a list of citing articles.

How does that streamline confirmation bias?

−2

velifer t1_iwuqxw9 wrote

>really your tone.

Zero fucks given. The mountain does not care if you believe in it. I don't care if you think I'm an asshole.

Reality doesn't change because you don't like the messenger, douche.

3