Oh, shit! I actually misread this. You are right. I'm tempted to think this person might be pulling Chris' lag?
-
-
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @o_guest
Yeah maybe that’s what anonymously mean. I’m not sure. Then it would be harder to catch for sure.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
there's an easy trick - ask them to cite that lab's / person's papers
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
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."
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ Retweeted Chris Chambers
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 …
Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ added,
Chris ChambersVerified account @chrisdc77Replying to @o_guest @siminevazire and 3 othersNot so explicit cos then you can get called out by the editor. It was more writing a dismissive review and citing a whole shitload of studies in the review by said enemy (and esp. anything you might know about as in-press cos this implies you really are that person)1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @o_guest @GordonFeld and
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".
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @o_guest @GordonFeld and
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @o_guest @GordonFeld and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
And so it's irrelevant who "they" and they are — just that they are annoying. 
-
-
Replying to @o_guest @GordonFeld and
And if one of them is an angel and the other always impersonates the angel, then that act will fall apart soon.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @o_guest @GordonFeld and
Really silly tactic in the grand scheme of scheming IMHO. It doesn't even consider that some people will just cite all of their nemesis' papers just to get accepted. A kind of cool own-goal.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
End of conversation
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.