that’s some expert level pettiness there. yuck! i wouldn’t think the editors would let it pass though, would they?https://twitter.com/chrisdc77/status/983372173363634176 …
-
-
Lol I hope so!!!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
What I thought, wrongly, was they were signing the good ones but pretending to be other people by writing as if they were ("In my lab this, that" which would be true for a competitor) other people.
-
Yeah maybe that’s what anonymously mean. I’m not sure. Then it would be harder to catch for sure.
-
Not impossible, but hard.
-
there's an easy trick - ask them to cite that lab's / person's papers
-
I sometimes do the opposite. If I ask the authors to cite another/opposing lab's paper (as it is relevant), I add more to prevent the impression that this was them, e.g.: "Please consider citing A et al., B et al. & C et al."
-
That's why I think this tactic doesn't actually work, because nobody can pick up on it (my first reply).https://twitter.com/chrisdc77/status/983705086076571651 …
-
If somebody tells me to cite a load of studies by "them" (which aren't even that relevant) I can think 1 of 2 things: "they" are a douchebag and/or that a nemesis of "theirs" is a douchebag. BUT! I can genuinely have a calibrated prior going into this about both them and "them".
-
Also they and "they" could both be reviewers of a given paper — likely given they are in the same sub(sub)field hence the feud. In which case it's hilarious as well as perhaps much easier to see what's up.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.