this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2024
268 points (99.3% liked)

People Twitter

5315 readers
720 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a tweet or similar
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 18 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I wonder if there's a common author or two in those references that would serve to identify the anonymous reviewers.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 weeks ago

If the original papers are niche enough, it's all but guaranteed..

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

i am unable to understand how that works; please help.

if these are indeed references to assertions made in their paper, how can they be irrelevant?

[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Pretty sure the request was "get more references" to a paper that needed none. So they added a bunch of stuff that doesn't do shit but gets the "number" bigger so the reviewers are happy with a "contribution" they made.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

More likely it was "please cite these tangentially related papers from the same field but not actually related to this work, which were totally not written by me, your anonymous reviewer, (who was picked because of my activity in this research area), and I'm definitely not suggesting them to drive my citation count up, no siree."

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 weeks ago

Basically, the anonymous peer reviewers told the authors "you should cite these additional papers in your work". It's expected that any such recommendations would be relevant to the topic at hand, and therefore are worth bringing attention to, but the authors clearly do not agree that they have anything to do with their research.