You must log in or register to comment.
Now, I’m aware that I’m on the science memes comm right now, and that you’re all much smarter and more enlightened and mature and shit.
But that dudes name is hitler and not one of you has said a word about it, and I find that very disappointing.
Isn’t that the joke ?
I think that Retraction Watch needs to do an institution leaderboard, to highlight which are the most, & least, corrupt institutions, because corruption’s a cultural thing, not merely an individual-thing.
_ /\ _
Wouldn’t that end up with a big survivorship bias? The truly corrupt would have no retractions from authors or institutions and there are potential incentives for publishers to not retract.
Put this guy on suicide watch and keep him away from his niece.
curious - as i have only worked in the data pipeline side of research and cohort generation - is it not ok for a researcher to cite their prior work if said work is post peer review?
It’s normal to cite your own work if the new paper is a continuation of that research. A references or three is normal and expected.
When somebody publishes a bullshit paper that is eventually withdrawn, every subsequent paper citing the fraudulent work can also be withdrawn as being unreliable.
A sign it’s all bullshit is when you see the majority of the citations for the paper from the same author. This usually doesn’t pass peer review anymore. In hyperspecialized fields with few researchers, they commonly get a little creative on the introduction section to include other authors.
makes sense! thanks for the reply.
he’s ripe for a great career with openai
Grok
