Many studies explore success, but how many truly address luck? Though some models treat ideas or grants as random, we rarely admit how much luck really matters. Even if statistics account for randomness, luck stays hidden—an inconvenient truth we often overlook.

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

I really like this article and agree with most of their points.

arxiv.org/pdf/2410.00788

Investigating US opioid overdose by network science.

arxiv.org/abs/2402.03924

On Wikipedia, recommending underrepresented topics to reviewers sounds like a good idea, but it can result in attracting too much attention to such topics and reducing overall engagement. However, the study does not show this adverse effect.

New ICWSM25 paper.

arxiv.org/abs/2307.08669

A new PNAS paper shows experts outperform the public in predicting the success of interventions to strengthen democratic attitudes. And...

- Academics: better at avoiding false-positive forecasts

- Practitioners: better at avoiding false-negative forecasts

www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/...

A paper claims that Google Scholar is manipulatable. Why? The authors purchased 50 citations (for a fictional author).

arxiv.org/abs/2402.04607

Studying why we use ASCII by interviews(CHI24 paper).

Video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RaK...
Paper: pg.ucsd.edu/publications...