If you write something that you base on your previous work, but you don't cite your previous work, that's a problem.
How is the peer reviewer supposed to know who the author is, I thought obfuscating that was the whole point...
Not always—it depends on the publisher for sure, and possibly the field (e.g., physics, chemistry).
In biology, you have several models for peer review. Completely blind reviews where both reviewers and authors are anonymized. You also have semi blind models where the reviewers know the identities of the authors, but the authors don't know reviewers' identities. You also have open reviews where everyone knows one another's identities.
In completely blind and semi-blind models, you occasionally have reviewers that reveal their identity.
In physics nothing is blinded, and people post their shit to the arxiv when they submit anyway
Yeah, preprints are becoming more common in bio too.
She was told to read and cite the other work. I take that as meaning she hadn't intended to use her previous work as a source, but they wanted her to
It's a catch-22 situation. You are supposed to disclose if you wrote the thing you're citing, but also cite in third person, and also it should be obfuscated for the peer review. So, what happens is that you write something like "in the author's previous work (yourownname, 2017)…" then that gets censored by yourself or whoever is in charge of the peer review, "in (blank) previous work (blank)…". Now, if you're experienced in reviews you can probably guess it is the author of the paper you're reviewing quoting themselves. But you still don't know who it is, and you could never guess right whether it is Ruth Gotian or not. So you're back to the tweet's situation.
How are you supposed to disclose you wrote it? You just include the authors in the cite. You don't write "as I(we) claimed/proved in [paper]", you wrote "as claimed/proved in [paper]". Who cares if you wrote it or not. It should stand by itself.
Some authors will cite themselves to try and increase their own prominence as a highly cited author, or to create the illusion of broad consensus on a topic that nobody agrees with them on.
happy cake day!
Go cite yourself.
You do need to do that though.
If someone wants to read further information they need the citations.
You are supposed to cite all your relevant previous works in each paper you publish.
She probably did. But the reviewer won't know that as the paper (should) get anonymized before review. The author's own name will be censored all the way throughout the paper with certain publishers.
Depending on field, double-blind reviews are rare. In ecology I had maybe one or two reviews in 5 years that were double-blinded, normally you see the author list as a reviewer
I doubt that since the comment was a suggestion to read and cite herself. If she did cite herself the assumption would be that she did read the citations so the comment would be moot, no? Why would they suggest to cite herself if she already did?
They only anonymize the author, not the citations right?
Because the reviewer didn't actually read the paper
You are absolutely right, but how are you going to make a fire Twitter post if you can't engineer a situation like this? 🤔
Fire twitter post that reads as incompetence to anyone who matters in their field... Yeah....
I mean, I can't really talk, I'm still working away at undergrad level; and I've got all the social media clout of the average housebrick.
Or just a little fun.
When I was in graduate school I got snared into evaluating potential new professor hires. One guy had like a couple of thousand publications, but they were all in journals that he had founded and was the editor of and nobody but himself and his friends ever got published in them. Amazingly, his CV included the publications and also all the journals that he founded and was the editor of. I pointed this out in a meeting and somehow this did not disqualify him from consideration. I was like, is this what everybody in academia does?
This except there's like 12 of them, in a circle.
You just have to change your name, go to a conference, stand on the stage and announce, that you are Et al.
Et al phone home!
I used to make this joke in graduate school all the time and nobody ever knew what the fuck I was saying. Maybe on Lemmy it will finally hit home!
if you state something based on previous work in the field even if its your own you should still cite it...
The implication that the reviewer thinks they're stupid and need to read more papers and try again.
Not that they're mis-citing works.
No should, but must.
In Academia, stupid as it is, if you use or cite previous work of yours without citing it, it's plagiarism.
It's not stupid. Anyone reading needs to know where a statement or conclusion comes from in case they need to check and see how that conclusion was reached in the first place.
But doctor....
I Am Pagliacci
I am Bibliography
Suddenly remembered Mitch Hedberg saying on stage, after some of his newer material didn't land as well, "My old shit's better than my new shit~"
Maybe you've just peaked, Ruth, lol.
That's a win-win
But are you Ruth Gotianough?
I am Spartacus
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
