Was James A. Clemens a renowned scientist ?

[juvilty]

I was studying and reading about Electrophysiology and I came across this scientist named James A. Clemens and I found his 1974 paper about "Non-sexual Hormonal Influences on the Electrophysiology of the Brain" and I found it very interesting, but I have no idea how reliable he is and also when I looked it up, I came across absolutely nothing. So I ask you guys to help and find out about your reputation in the field of science. Thank you!!

[swansont]

Google scholar might be a way to find more citations, which would tell you something about this.

[juvilty]

I already looked at that, but only appears other scientist named "James C. Clemens", after this I searched about him ad discovered that he only had writted two papers, the one I already talked about and another small text called "Effects of 1,1,3-tricyan-2-amino-1-propene on the Collagen Content of Connective Tissue and Wound Healing". He had his papers published by the University of Pennsylvania.  

[exchemist]

9 hours ago, juvilty said:

I already looked at that, but only appears other scientist named "James C. Clemens", after this I searched about him ad discovered that he only had writted two papers, the one I already talked about and another small text called "Effects of 1,1,3-tricyan-2-amino-1-propene on the Collagen Content of Connective Tissue and Wound Healing". He had his papers published by the University of Pennsylvania.  

Plenty of people publish papers who are not "renowned". He could have been a PhD student or something, or he could have simply left academia to do something other than research.  Does it matter?  

[juvilty]

On 7/22/2023 at 7:32 AM, exchemist said:

Plenty of people publish papers who are not "renowned". He could have been a PhD student or something, or he could have simply left academia to do something other than research.  Does it matter?  

I was wanting to know abou that because I really wanted to know about his reputation. All the scientist that I had the acess to see and listen have talked about the importance of being renowned scientists in order to be able to believe what they say about a certain subject. I really doesnt know if it matters, But you have a point.

[CharonY]

Renown means nothing, if it is outside their expertise. And in any given field there are established and capable scientists who are mostly unknown to the public.

[TheVat]

Scopus is also good for citation count.  Bear in mind, though, not all citations mean validation or approval of the paper in question.  You could have cites that say basically James Clemens got it wrong and here's why...

Which all serves to remind that Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad veracundiam) is a logical fallacy.  Even someone who's a Nobel prizewinner in their field can be mistaken and fool themselves.  For fun, google Francis Crick claustrum hypothesis.  

[exchemist]

13 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Scopus is also good for citation count.  Bear in mind, though, not all citations mean validation or approval of the paper in question.  You could have cites that say basically James Clemens got it wrong and here's why...

Which all serves to remind that Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad veracundiam) is a logical fallacy.  Even someone who's a Nobel prizewinner in their field can be mistaken and fool themselves.  For fun, google Francis Crick claustrum hypothesis.  

Well, yes and no. It may be a formal fallacy in philosophical argument, but in day to day life reliance on authority is something we all practice, much of the time, in order to get on with our lives without challenging every bloody thing from first principles all the time. Anyone who takes articles published in Nature, or on the BBC, as likely to be sound is relying on authority, viz. the reputation of a well-regarded source. Whenever we learn a theory in science we rely on authority, in the form of the books or the lecturers we follow. We take things on trust, from recognised authorities. We have no choice. 

[TheVat]

True, and that's not the veracundiam fallacy because we are respecting the Nature author for being gatekeeper to good data and allowing peer review, not because they said so.  IOW, we value authority when we believe in its integrity with evidence and honest and sound interpretation of that evidence.  We value authority when it says in effect, don't value this based on my authority, just listen to the evidence and consider me a conduit for that evidence.  

So, with Francis Crick, we might say I will check out his claustrum hypothesis because he's brilliant and has made terrific hypotheses in the past.  But we won't say, Francis, he's the authority on where consciousness comes from, so...case closed!  

[CharonY]

Another important element can be to check whether a person actually has expertise on a given field. Especially in modern sciences, fields tend to be fairly narrow and the more in detail the question is, the more specialist an expert has to be to provide meaningful insights.

[exchemist]

10 hours ago, poolesa said:

In the realm of academic research, citation counts and references to authoritative sources are often used as indicators of a paper's credibility and impact within a particular field. However, as you rightly pointed out, citations don't necessarily equate to validation or agreement with the content of the paper. Citations can encompass a range of relationships, including critiques, responses, disagreements, and extensions of the original work.

It's important for researchers and critical thinkers to strike a balance between respecting authority and exercising a healthy degree of skepticism. While relying on established experts and reputable sources can be a practical approach, it's also essential to engage in critical evaluation, open inquiry, and independent analysis when warranted.

Yes. We also need to keep aware of low quality, predatory or pay-to-publish journals, like those published by SCIRP for example. These are a new disease that has spread to an alarming degree among science publications. Caveat lector indeed.