I think there's an imposter amongus

Comments

• it_depends_man@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  If you write something that you base on your previous work, but you don’t cite your previous work, that’s a problem.

  How is the peer reviewer supposed to know who the author is, I thought obfuscating that was the whole point…

  source

  • oyfrog@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    Not always—it depends on the publisher for sure, and possibly the field (e.g., physics, chemistry).

    In biology, you have several models for peer review. Completely blind reviews where both reviewers and authors are anonymized. You also have semi blind models where the reviewers know the identities of the authors, but the authors don’t know reviewers’ identities. You also have open reviews where everyone knows one another’s identities.

    In completely blind and semi-blind models, you occasionally have reviewers that reveal their identity.

    source

    • errer@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      In physics nothing is blinded, and people post their shit to the arxiv when they submit anyway

      source
  • dustyData@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    It’s a catch-22 situation. You are supposed to disclose if you wrote the thing you’re citing, but also cite in third person, and also it should be obfuscated for the peer review. So, what happens is that you write something like “in the author’s previous work (yourownname, 2017)…” then that gets censored by yourself or whoever is in charge of the peer review, “in (blank) previous work (blank)…”. Now, if you’re experienced in reviews you can probably guess it is the author of the paper you’re reviewing. But you still don’t know who it is, and you could never guess right whether it is Ruth Gotian or not. So you’re back to the tweet’s situation.

    source

    • Tja@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      How are you supposed to disclose you wrote it? You just include the authors in the cite. You don’t write “as I(we) claimed/proved in [paper]”, you wrote “as claimed/proved in [paper]”. Who cares if you wrote it or not. It should stand by itself.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• snoons@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  Go cite yourself.

  source

  • 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

      • -> View More Comments
    • 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

      • -> View More Comments
• zebidiah@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  But doctor…

  source

  • roundup5381@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    I Am Pagliacci

    source
  • TargaryenTKE@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    I am Bibliography

    source
• damnedfurry@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  Suddenly remembered Mitch Hedberg saying on stage, after some of his newer material didn’t land as well, “My old shit’s better than my new shit~”

  source
• halvar@lemy.lol ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  You just have to change your name, go to a conference, stand on the stage and announce, that you are Et al.

  source
• Engywuck@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  That’s a win-win

  source
• BootyEnthusiast@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  I am Spartacus

  source