So I’ve seen the pics a million times now, but who actually won?
Ya girl going in a Q1
Submitted 1 month ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to science_memes@mander.xyz
https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/bc7979ee-41ed-4f0f-aa89-d15a052e8ff6.jpeg
Comments
ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 1 month ago
Zakkull@lemmy.world 1 month ago
They both got silver in their respective competitions
Axiochus@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Thank God for double blind peer reviews, warts and all.
lemming@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
Do they actually work? I don’t have actual experience, but I heard that they are only used by people who might benefit from them and thus the authors are automatically suspicious to the reviewer, plus you almost always cite your previous papers in a pretty obvious way, so it’s hardly blind anyway.
Axiochus@lemmy.world 1 month ago
In my field it’s often general journal policy, not an individual choice. It’s hit or miss, as it can be easy to guess who the reviewer or author is in a niche field. I personally don’t go out of my way to figure out the author’s affiliation, even if it can be trivial. Regarding self citations, those are usually obfuscated at the review stage. I’d say that a paper is easy to narrow down to a circle of scholars, but it might be the first paper of a research associate, a throwaway paper by a PI, or a paper that aims to engage those narrow specialists. So is a kind of smoke screen.
OhNoMoreLemmy@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
No it doesn’t work.
But it’s better than not doing it.
People suspect who the author is but maybe you cited those papers because you’re afraid of getting the author to review them, or you’re a fan-boying grad student.
FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 month ago
probably mostly only works for first publication