Go cite yourself.
I think there's an imposter amongus
Submitted 1 day ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to science_memes@mander.xyz
https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/8298df08-4c96-401a-ab2a-80c3b5710d52.jpeg
Comments
snoons@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
fushuan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day 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.
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.
PhobosAnomaly@feddit.uk 1 day 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? 🤔
ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 16 hours 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. I pointed this out in a meeting and somehow this did not disqualify him from consideration.
halvar@lemy.lol 1 day ago
You just have to change your name, go to a conference, stand on the stage and announce, that you are Et al.
ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
Et al phone home!
eru@mouse.chitanda.moe 19 hours ago
if you state something based on previous work in the field even if its your own you should still cite it…
DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.works 15 hours 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.
Agent641@lemmy.world 15 hours 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.
ProfessorPeregrine@reddthat.com 13 hours 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.
zebidiah@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
But doctor…
roundup5381@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
I Am Pagliacci
TargaryenTKE@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I am Bibliography
damnedfurry@lemmy.world 1 day 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~”
Engywuck@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
That’s a win-win
TomMasz@piefed.social 1 day ago
But are you Ruth Gotianough?
BootyEnthusiast@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
I am Spartacus
it_depends_man@lemmy.world 1 day 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…
oyfrog@lemmy.world 1 day 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.
errer@lemmy.world 1 day ago
In physics nothing is blinded, and people post their shit to the arxiv when they submit anyway
BossDj@piefed.social 1 day 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
dustyData@lemmy.world 1 day 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.
Tja@programming.dev 1 day 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.