But there are loads of papers like this. Then you have some literature studies which look at all these papers together and get result aggregates.
Then you get some “proper” studies which link to these aggregates, and several small studies, and you’re going to read these “proper” studies which are quoted often and deemed decent or good quality.
And at no point will you realise it’s all based on shoddy foundations.
This is for example what recently happened in social psychology
Unfortunately, they would. There are papers with thousands of citations that don't even have data samples, just models based on assumptions.
Maybe a lot of scientist really liked the proposed 'model' and/or some discussion on the assumptions.
and cited it in their paper proposing some additions or follow on work.
That is also fine.
"Computational modelling is a useful technique for predicting the course of epidemics [1][2][3][4][5]"
The cited papers wouldn't actually support the statement because they'd all be unvalidated models, but citing documents that don't support the claim is super common and doesn't seem to bother anyone :( Having demonstrated a "consensus" that publishing unvalidated simulations is "useful", they would then go ahead and do another one, which would then be cited in the same way ad infinitum.
But in general, I agree with you. It's ridiculous when someone pretends to shut down a complex issue by citing a random paper. However, an expert can still analyze the whole academic literature on a topic and determine what the scientific consensus is and how confident we are about it.