this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2024
227 points (99.1% liked)

Science Memes

11086 readers
2853 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
227
When you cite methods from your previous publications (lemmy.world)
submitted 9 months ago by TropicalDingdong to c/[email protected]
7 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
top 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] silver13 9 points 9 months ago (4 children)

Never thought about that, but I guess you could easily create circular reasoning with two or more publications citing each other?

[–] MotoAsh 7 points 9 months ago

Why do it with two? The Daily Wire cites their own stories all the time as evidence something is happening.

[–] TropicalDingdong 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Not necessarily, however, I've been down a shocking number of citation threads where the thing being ciit d actually never exists.

It's like 2-3 publications deep and thread ends at "unpublished data/ results" or, like it's just a lie and they never did the thing the author 2-3 orders removed is claiming they did. Or something's it's an unfounded conclusion or assertion made in the discussion.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

Those are super frustrating.

I’m not like… in research or anything, but as a science communicator I really like to understand some of the nuanced stuff that I’m telling people about, and those dead ends are really frustrating because everything sort of hinges on that, doesn’t it? If that blank space is filled by something else the conclusion probably changes.. and that means the way I can talk about it has to change.

I could imagine it being much worse for someone who is publishing or working on a paper for publication. Especially when a lot of people don’t dive that deep and just accept it because the peer review process seems to have also.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

You’d need a few more papers deep just in case someone started snooping around I feel. Maybe 5 or 6

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

Publish date would be hard, since you can't cite a paper from the future, and for most reputable journals you citing anything non-peer-reviewed would raise a lot of eyebrows

[–] frunch 4 points 9 months ago

The ultimate sovereign citizen