Me too! That wasn’t even the only time I got comments on my code. Since then, I make a point of doing at least a cursory check on codes when I review as well
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.
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.
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
31 Comments
Eq0@literature.cafe · 155 pts · 363d
Once, I got a reviewer stating “in the code, I doubt line 43 was supposed to be submitted”
Line 43: FUUUCK, DOES NOT WORK
OhNoMoreLemmy@lemmy.ml · 85 pts · 362d
I'm amazed a reviewer read the code.
Eq0@literature.cafe · 39 pts · 362d
Me too! That wasn’t even the only time I got comments on my code. Since then, I make a point of doing at least a cursory check on codes when I review as well
Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 362d
Do you also embed little easter eggs to reward those diligent code-reviewers?
ouRKaoS@lemmy.today · 11 pts · 362d
ASCII art in the comments
Two9A@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 362d
Whenever I come across ASCII art in the comments, it's a good day. Here's one from the day job:
Eq0@literature.cafe · 3 pts · 362d
Not like that anymore >.<
SkyezOpen@lemmy.world · 25 pts · 362d
Did it work though?
Eq0@literature.cafe · 33 pts · 362d
Yes. Yes, everything works a-okay. Somehow I fixed the code but never removed the obnoxious, full cap comment…
bleistift2@sopuli.xyz · 81 pts · 363d
That’s why you always prefix your todos with “TODO”
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social · 15 pts · 362d
To-do: add TODO
BluJay320@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 362d
Only in Kansas
Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de · 2 pts · 354d
todo, todo, todo todo todo, todo todooooo
tododododooo
Sergio@piefed.social · 43 pts · 363d
Best case scenario:
Microw@piefed.zip · 31 pts · 362d
Worst case scenario:
The peer reviewer is Gabor.
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social · 20 pts · 362d
Best Case Scenario:
Gabor agrees the paper was crap
ZoteTheMighty@lemmy.zip · 7 pts · 362d
If your reviewer suggests you cite another paper, it's one of their papers and they just doxed themselves, 100% of the time.
Usernamealreadyinuse@lemmy.world · 34 pts · 362d
https://retractionwatch.com/2014/11/11/overly-honest-references-should-we-cite-the-crappy-gabor-paper-here/
Awesome, it was published but retracted
Contramuffin@lemmy.world · 25 pts · 362d
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 · 17 pts · 362d
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 · 13 pts · 362d
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 · 7 pts · 362d
why not add notes as marginalia?
Zwiebel@feddit.org · 6 pts · 362d
####I throw some hashes in front
Eq0@literature.cafe · 3 pts · 362d
I throw ?? (that is also the default error code for LaTeX, so the last sweep of the pdf is always a search for ??)
ryedaft@sh.itjust.works · 16 pts · 362d
OOP really overestimating how many people read a paper. It's about publishing as many papers as possible, not proofreading.
HiddenLychee@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 362d
If I found all my reviewers paid this little attention I would contact the editors and demand new ones lmao
ryedaft@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 361d
So you don't think editors send out complete garbage that they should have rejected themselves?
HiddenLychee@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 361d
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
SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 363d
At least it wasn't AI
stelelor@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 362d
My thought sas well! I'd rather stumble upon this than shit like "vegetative electron miscroscopy".
Postimo@lemmy.zip · 0 pts · 363d
Vibes science?