Studies that fail to replicate ‘get more citations’

The important question is, what are the citing articles saying? Are they picking out that the results of the original studies might be flawed or are they just citing those papers? If the former, then it lends additional credibility to the view that citations may be flawed measure of quality. If a paper tha tone cites turns out to be not replicable ex-post there isnt anything one can do about it, that falls on the journals and the refrees of the original article.

There is a general sickness in modern science Researchers used to look for fame by trying to solve some major, open problem This has been replaced by the aim to get into the top journals, usually by dressing up some average work by exaggerating, lying by omission or even fabricating results That, and advertising their work on twitter, in conferences etc. using the same tactics There is little time and patience for solving the major problems, while competitors are busy getting the most outrageous crap past reviewers (who are too frequently neither qualified nor interested enough to judge) in the most lauded of journals