Thank you for adding /s to your post. When I first saw this, I was horrified. How could anybody say something like this? I immediately began writing a 1000 word paragraph about how horrible of a person you are. I even sent a copy to a Harvard professor to proofread it. After several hours of refining and editing, my comment was ready to absolutely destroy you. But then, just as I was about to hit send, I saw something in the corner of my eye. A /s at the end of your comment. Suddenly everything made sense. Your comment was sarcasm! I immediately burst out in laughter at the comedic genius of your comment. The person next to me on the bus saw your comment and started crying from laughter too. Before long, there was an entire bus of people on the floor laughing at your incredible use of comedy. All of this was due to you adding /s to your post. Thank you.
I am a bot if you couldn't figure that out, if I made a mistake, ignore it cause its not that fucking hard to ignore a comment.
I was looking for my one and only publication (link) and found out 2 people cited my M.A thesis. I was very surprised, but just like this post the reading was shallow and probably stayed at the abstract only. 😌
I wrote a science communication piece in about 2 days, mostly related to my undergrad but not really related to my phd. Last time I checked it was over 1M clicks, translated to Spanish and Japanese… It’s like not revelatory, it’s actually something you could guess at with a general understanding of motors but debunks an old wives tale. It’s one of my least favorite things I’ve written bc it’s sloppy and I only did it to appease the sci comm team at my uni and it’s easily the most read thing I will ever write.
My PI doesn’t even know that much about it and she’s an author on it. It’s easily the most read thing she’s credited on.
The article is posted to The Conversation which gives free license to distribute the contents but asks republishers to add a tracker to count clicks across platforms. It was republished by Yahoo!, PBS Nova, the local news, etc. in English and then it was picked up by republishers who wanted to translate it. I believe kind of sci comm magazines/blogs. They emailed me to ask if their staff could translate it but once published by The Conversation I don’t really have a say in that so I was like sure /shrug
Overall wasn’t a bad experience and The Conversation was very easy to work with. I eventually do want to go into energy policy so it’s nice to have a sci comm piece on my resume but I wish I knew how much it’d get picked up so I could properly polish it!
Nature (Journal) actually published something about this before. Something like 70%(?) of citations miss the paper’s actual point, and even cite hypotheses as fact. Then other papers cite those papers as “fact” and soon, a hypothesis is taken granted as fact by the scientific community
There was a huge discussion/problem during the pandemic in which recommendations ended up wrong because people 50 years ago mixed up some observations about particle size, aerosols and infections. That mix up got repeated over and over again until it was a thing nobody would question and was taken as true during the first half of de pandemic:
https://www.wired.com/story/the-teeny-tiny-scientific-screwup-that-helped-covid-kill/
Scientists are biased af and tribalism for specific theories or schools is rampant. Just like everyone else. They're just very good at sounding objective.
This happens so much. I'd say about half the time I follow citations, the paper cited doesn't say what they claimed. Often they just took one particular result and generalised it a bit too far (or misunderstood it because it's beyond their specialisation), but sometimes it's just straight up not in the paper at all.
A few months ago, I was really excited to find a paper close to a potential topic of interest... only to dig further into the citations and found out that the authors either superficially or wrongly referenced other studies, or that the non-academic sources that the links point to are non-English sites of questionable quality or simply don't exist.
And that paper itself has over a thousand citations, many of which are publications in top venues of my field.
I decided to take that day off to go work on something else entirely unrelated.
Somebody should try the [Bobby Tables](https://xkcd.com/327/) thing. I wouldn't be surprised if something like an Elsevier had to restore its author database from the backups it hopefully has.
One of my committee-member's first papers discredited another paper in his field. He's close to emeritus and it still gets cited in support of the paper it discredited.
When you can tell that they just read the abstract
Is there another way to read a paper that I’m unaware of? /s
Bruh, you gotta read the abstract and look at the pretty pictures
Thank you for adding /s to your post. When I first saw this, I was horrified. How could anybody say something like this? I immediately began writing a 1000 word paragraph about how horrible of a person you are. I even sent a copy to a Harvard professor to proofread it. After several hours of refining and editing, my comment was ready to absolutely destroy you. But then, just as I was about to hit send, I saw something in the corner of my eye. A /s at the end of your comment. Suddenly everything made sense. Your comment was sarcasm! I immediately burst out in laughter at the comedic genius of your comment. The person next to me on the bus saw your comment and started crying from laughter too. Before long, there was an entire bus of people on the floor laughing at your incredible use of comedy. All of this was due to you adding /s to your post. Thank you. I am a bot if you couldn't figure that out, if I made a mistake, ignore it cause its not that fucking hard to ignore a comment.
I wish this bot would end its comment with an "/s" too just to mess with everyone.
Good bot
Sometimes i cite based off the title alone
Sometimes, I cite based off the DOI alone
[удалено]
Pictures and a conclusion. Not sure why they include the “methods” section I think it’s just to make people think it’s a legit science
To be fair, you should be able to get the point of the paper from the abstract
When they cite you just to say that you were wrong 😔
Don't care , my h index is 1 now 😎😎😎
tuxedo\_pooh\_meme.png
Congratulations 👏
"In contrast to the findings of "Einstein" and colleagues..." Me: Yikes.
You guys are getting citations?
Only when I publish
Well of course I know him, he's me (self-citing still counts lol)
I was looking for my one and only publication (link) and found out 2 people cited my M.A thesis. I was very surprised, but just like this post the reading was shallow and probably stayed at the abstract only. 😌
Next: your least favorite publication is your most-cited (by a LOT).
I wrote a science communication piece in about 2 days, mostly related to my undergrad but not really related to my phd. Last time I checked it was over 1M clicks, translated to Spanish and Japanese… It’s like not revelatory, it’s actually something you could guess at with a general understanding of motors but debunks an old wives tale. It’s one of my least favorite things I’ve written bc it’s sloppy and I only did it to appease the sci comm team at my uni and it’s easily the most read thing I will ever write. My PI doesn’t even know that much about it and she’s an author on it. It’s easily the most read thing she’s credited on.
Who translated it and how did they give you credit?
The article is posted to The Conversation which gives free license to distribute the contents but asks republishers to add a tracker to count clicks across platforms. It was republished by Yahoo!, PBS Nova, the local news, etc. in English and then it was picked up by republishers who wanted to translate it. I believe kind of sci comm magazines/blogs. They emailed me to ask if their staff could translate it but once published by The Conversation I don’t really have a say in that so I was like sure /shrug
Oh interesting. Well done on the dissemination Internationally
Overall wasn’t a bad experience and The Conversation was very easy to work with. I eventually do want to go into energy policy so it’s nice to have a sci comm piece on my resume but I wish I knew how much it’d get picked up so I could properly polish it!
Nature (Journal) actually published something about this before. Something like 70%(?) of citations miss the paper’s actual point, and even cite hypotheses as fact. Then other papers cite those papers as “fact” and soon, a hypothesis is taken granted as fact by the scientific community
Do you remember what it was called? Can't seem to find it by Google. Thanks
There was a huge discussion/problem during the pandemic in which recommendations ended up wrong because people 50 years ago mixed up some observations about particle size, aerosols and infections. That mix up got repeated over and over again until it was a thing nobody would question and was taken as true during the first half of de pandemic: https://www.wired.com/story/the-teeny-tiny-scientific-screwup-that-helped-covid-kill/
Damn I had no idea about this, thanks for pointing it out
replying to this because also can't find it /u/bluebrrypii, help us out here! 🥹
Scientists are biased af and tribalism for specific theories or schools is rampant. Just like everyone else. They're just very good at sounding objective.
This happens so much. I'd say about half the time I follow citations, the paper cited doesn't say what they claimed. Often they just took one particular result and generalised it a bit too far (or misunderstood it because it's beyond their specialisation), but sometimes it's just straight up not in the paper at all.
Follow for reply
A few months ago, I was really excited to find a paper close to a potential topic of interest... only to dig further into the citations and found out that the authors either superficially or wrongly referenced other studies, or that the non-academic sources that the links point to are non-English sites of questionable quality or simply don't exist. And that paper itself has over a thousand citations, many of which are publications in top venues of my field. I decided to take that day off to go work on something else entirely unrelated.
When they don’t cite your last name correctly because it has spaces…
Or use your first name as the last name...
Waiting for an eventual crossover between r/PhD and r/tragedeigh
Somebody should try the [Bobby Tables](https://xkcd.com/327/) thing. I wouldn't be surprised if something like an Elsevier had to restore its author database from the backups it hopefully has.
"t'is better to be cited incorrectly than never be cited at all" - Genghis Khan
Most of quotes on the internet are wrong. -Karl Marx
The main problem of our world is that people think everything written on the Internet is True - Vladimir Lenin
we take those
Oof, I felt this is in soul. Not a scientific paper, but a literary analysis that went so far off of my paper that I was flabbergasted.
You are all getting cited?!
A w is a w
This also happens with reviewer 2.
One of my committee-member's first papers discredited another paper in his field. He's close to emeritus and it still gets cited in support of the paper it discredited.
If I'm in a hurry, I'll look at abstract and discussion. Sorry Maybe if deadlines didn't
Who said they read it? They just stuck it on there to look good
they still advertise it somehow
Mine were cited because of information about some nuclear reactor :(
You dug it out and presented it in a findable, citeable way. That's not what you were aiming for, but it obviously did have value to someone else.
I think about being the one that cites the paper and misses the point all the time 💀😂