this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2025
1 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

16376 readers
405 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 0 points 3 days ago (2 children)

That’s why you always prefix your todos with “TODO”

To-do: add TODO

[–] BluJay320@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 2 days ago

Only in Kansas

[–] Eq0@literature.cafe 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Once, I got a reviewer stating “in the code, I doubt line 43 was supposed to be submitted”

Line 43: FUUUCK, DOES NOT WORK

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] Eq0@literature.cafe 0 points 3 days ago

Yes. Yes, everything works a-okay. Somehow I fixed the code but never removed the obnoxious, full cap comment…

[–] Sergio@piefed.social 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Best case scenario:

  • The initial submission didn't cite the crappy Gabor paper, and peer reviewers said that it should.
  • The peer editor, summarizing feedback, said that the submission was accepted as long as it took into account the peer reviewer suggested revisions.
  • The submitters don't really care about the paper quality, all they need is the citation. So they assigned the revisions to the lowliest grad student.
  • The lowliest grad student knows their advisor hates that crapmaster Gabor, so when they sent it to their advisor they asked whether they should cite that paper, thinking they might prefer to passive-aggressively "forget" to do so
  • The advisor doesn't care about the paper quality (see above) so they just skimmed it and saw the word "Gabor". (alternate hypothesis: they thought this was a great opportunity to troll that crap-merchant Gabor, as well as those useless middlemen thieves at Wiley.)
  • The peer editor: same as the advisor, they're just doing this for a line-item on their CV.
  • The Wiley "editor" doesn't even read the paper, they just forward it to the typesetter subcontractors and demand that the submitters pay up.
  • The typesetter subcontractors don't care, it's all just text to them.
  • And so it becomes Science, and the writer of crappy papers Gabor is enshrined in the pantheon along with Ea-Nasir and William "I'm something of a scientist myself" Dafoe. Immortality, of a sorts.
[–] Microw@piefed.zip 0 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Worst case scenario:

The peer reviewer is Gabor.

Best Case Scenario:

Gabor agrees the paper was crap

[–] ZoteTheMighty@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 days ago

If your reviewer suggests you cite another paper, it's one of their papers and they just doxed themselves, 100% of the time.

[–] Contramuffin@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (2 children)

That's why you change the color of any temporary text so that you can really see if there's any left

[–] Eq0@literature.cafe 0 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Considering how widespread of a situation it is, I am surprised I haven’t found yet a good LaTeX package that handles temporary sections

[–] howrar@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 days ago

You don't need a package at all. I just define a new command \xxx{stuff} that changes the colour to red. It's a one-liner. Copy and paste that into any new document. Changing the colour without a custom command is equally trivial, but this allows you to search for "xxx" to find anything you might've missed.

[–] grysbok@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 3 days ago

why not add notes as marginalia?

[–] Zwiebel@feddit.org 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

####I throw some hashes in front

[–] Eq0@literature.cafe 0 points 2 days ago

I throw ?? (that is also the default error code for LaTeX, so the last sweep of the pdf is always a search for ??)

[–] Postimo@lemmy.zip 0 points 3 days ago

Vibes science?

[–] ryedaft@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

OOP really overestimating how many people read a paper. It's about publishing as many papers as possible, not proofreading.

[–] HiddenLychee@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If I found all my reviewers paid this little attention I would contact the editors and demand new ones lmao

[–] ryedaft@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

So you don't think editors send out complete garbage that they should have rejected themselves?

[–] HiddenLychee@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago

I mean I haven't reviewed many papers myself, but I haven't gotten something that made me think it should have been desk rejected. I suppose that happens though