retractionwatch.com/…/overly-honest-references-sh…
Awesome, it was published but retracted
Real Talk
Submitted 7 months ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to science_memes@mander.xyz
https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/5d95091b-bfeb-47d9-9448-5621c9c12b8b.jpeg
Comments
Usernamealreadyinuse@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Contramuffin@lemmy.world 7 months ago
That’s why you change the color of any temporary text so that you can really see if there’s any left
Zwiebel@feddit.org 7 months ago
####I throw some hashes in front
Eq0@literature.cafe 7 months ago
I throw ?? (that is also the default error code for LaTeX, so the last sweep of the pdf is always a search for ??)
Eq0@literature.cafe 7 months ago
Considering how widespread of a situation it is, I am surprised I haven’t found yet a good LaTeX package that handles temporary sections
howrar@lemmy.ca 7 months ago
You don’t need a package at all. I just define a new command
\xxx{stuff}that changes the colour to red. It’s a one-liner. Copy and paste that into any new document. Changing the colour without a custom command is equally trivial, but this allows you to search for “xxx” to find anything you might’ve missed.grysbok@lemmy.sdf.org 7 months ago
why not add notes as marginalia?
Sergio@piefed.social 7 months ago
Best case scenario:
- The initial submission didn't cite the crappy Gabor paper, and peer reviewers said that it should.
- The peer editor, summarizing feedback, said that the submission was accepted as long as it took into account the peer reviewer suggested revisions.
- The submitters don't really care about the paper quality, all they need is the citation. So they assigned the revisions to the lowliest grad student.
- The lowliest grad student knows their advisor hates that crapmaster Gabor, so when they sent it to their advisor they asked whether they should cite that paper, thinking they might prefer to passive-aggressively "forget" to do so
- The advisor doesn't care about the paper quality (see above) so they just skimmed it and saw the word "Gabor". (alternate hypothesis: they thought this was a great opportunity to troll that crap-merchant Gabor, as well as those useless middlemen thieves at Wiley.)
- The peer editor: same as the advisor, they're just doing this for a line-item on their CV.
- The Wiley "editor" doesn't even read the paper, they just forward it to the typesetter subcontractors and demand that the submitters pay up.
- The typesetter subcontractors don't care, it's all just text to them.
- And so it becomes Science, and the writer of crappy papers Gabor is enshrined in the pantheon along with Ea-Nasir and William "I'm something of a scientist myself" Dafoe. Immortality, of a sorts.
Microw@piefed.zip 7 months ago
Worst case scenario:
The peer reviewer is Gabor.
ZoteTheMighty@lemmy.zip 7 months ago
If your reviewer suggests you cite another paper, it’s one of their papers and they just doxed themselves, 100% of the time.
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 7 months ago
Best Case Scenario:
Gabor agrees the paper was crap
SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 7 months ago
At least it wasn’t AI
stelelor@lemmy.ca 7 months ago
My thought sas well! I’d rather stumble upon this than shit like “vegetative electron miscroscopy”.
Postimo@lemmy.zip 7 months ago
Vibes science?
Eq0@literature.cafe 7 months ago
Once, I got a reviewer stating “in the code, I doubt line 43 was supposed to be submitted”
Line 43: FUUUCK, DOES NOT WORK
OhNoMoreLemmy@lemmy.ml 7 months ago
I’m amazed a reviewer read the code.
Eq0@literature.cafe 7 months ago
Me too! That wasn’t even the inly time I got comments on my code. Since then, I make a point of doing at least a cursory check on codes when I review as well
SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Did it work though?
Eq0@literature.cafe 7 months ago
Yes. Yes, everything works a-okay. Somehow I fixed the code but never removed the obnoxious, full cap comment…
bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 7 months ago
That’s why you always prefix your todos with “TODO”
Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 7 months ago
todo, todo, todo todo todo, todo todooooo
tododododoooBluJay320@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 months ago
Only in Kansas
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 7 months ago
To-do: add TODO
ryedaft@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
OOP really overestimating how many people read a paper. It’s about publishing as many papers as possible, not proofreading.
HiddenLychee@lemmy.world 7 months ago
If I found all my reviewers paid this little attention I would contact the editors and demand new ones lmao
ryedaft@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
So you don’t think editors send out complete garbage that they should have rejected themselves?