You are absolutely right, but how are you going to make a fire Twitter post if you can’t engineer a situation like this? 🤔
Comment on I think there's an imposter amongus
fushuan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day agoYou 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.
PhobosAnomaly@feddit.uk 1 day ago
fushuan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
Fire twitter post that reads as incompetence to anyone who matters in their field… Yeah…
PhobosAnomaly@feddit.uk 1 day 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.
Serinus@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Or just a little fun.
dustyData@lemmy.world 1 day 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.
trolske@feddit.org 1 day 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
fushuan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day 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?
JesusChristLover420@lemmy.sdf.org 1 day ago
Because the reviewer didn’t actually read the paper