I think there's an imposter amongus

10 months ago by fossilesque to c/science_memes

it_depends_man 151 points 10 months 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...

path: 0 21060358, hotness: undefined, score: 151, children: 8

oyfrog 34 points 10 months 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.

path: 0 21060358 21061995, hotness: undefined, score: 34, children: 2

errer 14 points 10 months ago

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

path: 0 21060358 21061995 21062840, hotness: undefined, score: 14, children: 1

oyfrog 2 points 10 months ago

Yeah, preprints are becoming more common in bio too.

path: 0 21060358 21061995 21062840 21069158, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0

BossDj 28 points 10 months ago

She was told to read and cite the other work. I take that as meaning she hadn't intended to use her previous work as a source, but they wanted her to

path: 0 21060358 21063539, hotness: undefined, score: 28, children: 0

dustyData 21 points 10 months 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 quoting themselves. 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.

path: 0 21060358 21062726, hotness: undefined, score: 21, children: 3

Tja 9 points 10 months 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.

path: 0 21060358 21062726 21063807, hotness: undefined, score: 9, children: 2

JesusChristLover420 8 points 10 months ago

Some authors will cite themselves to try and increase their own prominence as a highly cited author, or to create the illusion of broad consensus on a topic that nobody agrees with them on.

path: 0 21060358 21062726 21063807 21065149, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 0

pewgar_seemsimandroid 3 points 10 months ago

happy cake day!

path: 0 21060358 21062726 21063807 21072654, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0

snoons 134 points 10 months ago

Go cite yourself.

path: 0 21060847, hotness: undefined, score: 134, children: 12

fushuan 107 points 10 months 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.

path: 0 21060847 21061058, hotness: undefined, score: 107, children: 8

dustyData 32 points 10 months 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 with certain publishers.

path: 0 21060847 21061058 21062777, hotness: undefined, score: 32, children: 3

trolske 13 points 10 months 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

path: 0 21060847 21061058 21062777 21063120, hotness: undefined, score: 13, children: 0

fushuan 10 points 10 months 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?

They only anonymize the author, not the citations right?

path: 0 21060847 21061058 21062777 21063022, hotness: undefined, score: 10, children: 1

JesusChristLover420 8 points 10 months ago

Because the reviewer didn't actually read the paper

path: 0 21060847 21061058 21062777 21063022 21065080, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 0

PhobosAnomaly 17 points 10 months 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? 🤔

path: 0 21060847 21061058 21061157, hotness: undefined, score: 17, children: 3

fushuan 6 points 10 months ago

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

path: 0 21060847 21061058 21061157 21061180, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 2

PhobosAnomaly 6 points 10 months 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.

path: 0 21060847 21061058 21061157 21061180 21061236, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 0

Serinus 3 points 10 months ago

Or just a little fun.

path: 0 21060847 21061058 21061157 21061180 21063348, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0

ChickenLadyLovesLife 17 points 10 months ago

When I was in graduate school I got snared into evaluating potential new professor hires. One guy had like a couple of thousand publications, but they were all in journals that he had founded and was the editor of and nobody but himself and his friends ever got published in them. Amazingly, his CV included the publications and also all the journals that he founded and was the editor of. I pointed this out in a meeting and somehow this did not disqualify him from consideration. I was like, is this what everybody in academia does?

path: 0 21060847 21072058, hotness: undefined, score: 17, children: 2

Agent641 15 points 10 months ago

path: 0 21060847 21072058 21072790, hotness: undefined, score: 15, children: 1

snoons 8 points 10 months ago

This except there's like 12 of them, in a circle.

path: 0 21060847 21072058 21072790 21075357, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 0

zebidiah 53 points 10 months ago

But doctor....

path: 0 21061944, hotness: undefined, score: 53, children: 2

roundup5381 37 points 10 months ago

I Am Pagliacci

path: 0 21061944 21062083, hotness: undefined, score: 37, children: 0

TargaryenTKE 15 points 10 months ago

I am Bibliography

path: 0 21061944 21062701, hotness: undefined, score: 15, children: 0

halvar 47 points 10 months ago

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

path: 0 21064024, hotness: undefined, score: 47, children: 1

ChickenLadyLovesLife 12 points 10 months ago

Et al phone home!

I used to make this joke in graduate school all the time and nobody ever knew what the fuck I was saying. Maybe on Lemmy it will finally hit home!

path: 0 21064024 21072022, hotness: undefined, score: 12, children: 0

eru 33 points 10 months ago

if you state something based on previous work in the field even if its your own you should still cite it...

path: 0 21069598, hotness: undefined, score: 33, children: 3

DoPeopleLookHere 22 points 10 months ago

The implication that the reviewer thinks they're stupid and need to read more papers and try again.

Not that they're mis-citing works.

path: 0 21069598 21073232, hotness: undefined, score: 22, children: 0

Agent641 6 points 10 months ago

No should, but must.

In Academia, stupid as it is, if you use or cite previous work of yours without citing it, it's plagiarism.

path: 0 21069598 21072738, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 1

ProfessorPeregrine 12 points 10 months ago

It's not stupid. Anyone reading needs to know where a statement or conclusion comes from in case they need to check and see how that conclusion was reached in the first place.

path: 0 21069598 21072738 21074419, hotness: undefined, score: 12, children: 0

Engywuck 24 points 10 months ago

That's a win-win

path: 0 21059912, hotness: undefined, score: 24, children: 0

damnedfurry 24 points 10 months 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~"

Maybe you've just peaked, Ruth, lol.

path: 0 21062341, hotness: undefined, score: 24, children: 0

TomMasz 20 points 10 months ago

But are you Ruth Gotianough?

path: 0 21060493, hotness: undefined, score: 20, children: 0

BootyEnthusiast 8 points 10 months ago

I am Spartacus

path: 0 21060024, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 0

science_memes

@mander.xyz

login for more options

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
Keep it rooted (on topic).
No spam.
Infographics welcome, get schooled.

Research Committee

!spiders@lemmy.world

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

go to feed...

science_memes

@mander.xyz

login for more options

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
Keep it rooted (on topic).
No spam.
Infographics welcome, get schooled.

Research Committee

!spiders@lemmy.world

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

go to feed...