That’s why you always prefix your todos with “TODO”
Real Talk
Submitted 17 hours ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to science_memes@mander.xyz
https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/5d95091b-bfeb-47d9-9448-5621c9c12b8b.jpeg
Comments
bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 16 hours ago
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 11 hours ago
To-do: add TODO
BluJay320@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 hours ago
Only in Kansas
Usernamealreadyinuse@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
retractionwatch.com/…/overly-honest-references-sh…
Awesome, it was published but retracted
Sergio@piefed.social 15 hours 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 11 hours ago
Worst case scenario:
The peer reviewer is Gabor.
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 11 hours ago
Best Case Scenario:
Gabor agrees the paper was crap
ZoteTheMighty@lemmy.zip 10 hours ago
If your reviewer suggests you cite another paper, it’s one of their papers and they just doxed themselves, 100% of the time.
Contramuffin@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
That’s why you change the color of any temporary text so that you can really see if there’s any left
Eq0@literature.cafe 15 hours 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 9 hours 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 13 hours ago
why not add notes as marginalia?
Zwiebel@feddit.org 14 hours ago
####I throw some hashes in front
SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
At least it wasn’t AI
Postimo@lemmy.zip 16 hours ago
Vibes science?
Eq0@literature.cafe 16 hours 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 15 hours ago
I’m amazed a reviewer read the code.
Eq0@literature.cafe 15 hours 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 15 hours ago
Did it work though?
Eq0@literature.cafe 15 hours ago
Yes. Yes, everything works a-okay. Somehow I fixed the code but never removed the obnoxious, full cap comment…