Comment on I think there's an imposter amongus

snoons@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

• fushuan@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  You do need to do that though.

  If someone wants to read further information they need the citations.

  You are supposed to cite all your relevant previous works in each paper you publish.

  source

  • dustyData@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    She probably did. But the reviewer won’t know that as the paper (should) get anonymized before review. The author’s own name will be censored all the way throughout the paper.

    source

    • trolske@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      Depending on field, double-blind reviews are rare. In ecology I had maybe one or two reviews in 5 years that were double-blinded, normally you see the author list as a reviewer

      source
    • fushuan@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      I doubt that since the comment was a suggestion to read and cite herself. If she did cite herself the assumption would be that she did read the citations so the comment would be moot, no? Why would they suggest to cite herself if she already did?

      source

      • JesusChristLover420@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        Because the reviewer didn’t actually read the paper

        source
  • PhobosAnomaly@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    You are absolutely right, but how are you going to make a fire Twitter post if you can’t engineer a situation like this? 🤔

    source

    • fushuan@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      Fire twitter post that reads as incompetence to anyone who matters in their field… Yeah…

      source

      • PhobosAnomaly@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        I mean, I can’t really talk, I’m still working away at undergrad level; and I’ve got all the social media clout of the average housebrick.

        source
      • Serinus@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        Or just a little fun.

        source