544

submitted 9 months ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

38 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[-] frustratedphagocytosis@kbin.social 44 points 9 months ago

I call BS, there's not enough room for this sort of detail, you'd get 'as described previously in [1-4, 9, 84, 86, 150-160, unpublished observations]' half of which are unaccessible journals, out of print book chapters, and abstracts in German

[-] inconel@lemmy.ca 14 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I only encountered once, but when it happened I had to realize how old science field may have been different. The exact detail I was looking for should be in [20] ... but "[20] to be published" (presumably by the same author). I couldn't find any papers by author's name other than that but the author was so sure getting published.

[-] frustratedphagocytosis@kbin.social 9 points 9 months ago

My favorite is recursive bad citations in the method section. As in, citing a paper that cited a previous paper that itself cited a previous paper that cited an abstract with no detailed methodology whatsoever, leaving the true methods a mystery unless you get the senior author to reply to emails.