Funny

13467 readers

735 users here now

General rules:

Be kind.
All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
Don't post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.

Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

TheDude@sh.itjust.works

kersploosh@sh.itjust.works

example@reddthat.com

VicksVaporBBQrub@sh.itjust.works

583

Catch 22 (lemmy.ml)

submitted 1 week ago by cm0002@no.lastname.nz to c/funny@sh.itjust.works

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] WolfLink@sh.itjust.works 40 points 1 week ago (1 children)

A self-citation in a double-blind review should just look like a normal citation of 3rd party work.

Unless you are saying specifically “in my previous work”.

I suppose it depends on the writing style.

[–] Sumocat@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

Yes, it should look the same, and some journals go as far as redacting the references on the review copy entirely, so they all look exactly the same. That said, if an author is prestigious enough to be known, they need to do more than that to mask their identity. Writing styles and subject matter can give away an author’s identify even if blinded.