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 …
-
-
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.
-
So all in all I think a lot of this is noise and gets factored out. Either you don't pick up on it at all or you do but it's still just noise as feuds are likely only really that cultivated between two real nob-heads.

-
And so it's irrelevant who "they" and they are — just that they are annoying.

-
And if one of them is an angel and the other always impersonates the angel, then that act will fall apart soon.
- 1 more reply
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.