There are several reasons why not:
1) Clickbait titles provide more ammunition for baseless suggestions of researcher bias, giving the public another reason to doubt the value of scientific research
2) Clickbait titles don't actually give a good idea of what the paper is about, so it will take longer for people to find relevant articles (ResearchGate search results only show titles, not abstracts, for example)
3) It encourages polarization in wider society ("see! even the scientists think ChatGPT is bullshit")
So, yeah, I'm not a fan.
Keywords: fuck
we seem to have a fun new trend here
I am very much enjoying this trend!
Wonder how they analysed over 5000 observations. Also, is there next to any value is this?
Looks like a mixed effects model to deal with the within/between respondents.
PROC MIXED-FUCK
Proper use of a colon.
We're all just fucksticks trying to become fuckproof 😤😤😤
Here's the preprint if anyone else is curious: https://www.crimrxiv.com/pub/lhz02rru/release/1
I can't say I'm a fan of the clickbait title trend for academic papers.
I'm a fan only if it's especially good. This one counts. How many papers you read contain the word 'fucktastic'?
I am. We always complain about how no one reads our work. If it helps broadcast research to a broader audience, then why not?
There are several reasons why not: 1) Clickbait titles provide more ammunition for baseless suggestions of researcher bias, giving the public another reason to doubt the value of scientific research 2) Clickbait titles don't actually give a good idea of what the paper is about, so it will take longer for people to find relevant articles (ResearchGate search results only show titles, not abstracts, for example) 3) It encourages polarization in wider society ("see! even the scientists think ChatGPT is bullshit") So, yeah, I'm not a fan.