this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2024
352 points (98.1% liked)

Science Memes

10923 readers
2681 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
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
352
Let him go!! (mander.xyz)
submitted 2 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
17 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 36 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

How can we know the over-arching theme and conclusion of this paper without seeing it in it's entirety?

[–] [email protected] 55 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

You can read it here https://www.scs.stanford.edu/~dm/home/papers/remove.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Journal_of_Advanced_Computer_Technology

In 2005, two scientists, David Mazières and Eddie Kohler, wrote a paper titled Get me off Your Fucking Mailing List and submitted it to WMSCI 2005 (the 9th World Multiconference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics), in protest of the conference's notoriety for its spamming and lax standards for paper acceptance. The paper consisted essentially only of the sentence "Get me off your fucking mailing list" repeated many times, sometimes as illustrations or diagrams.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

And how did it end? Was it published? Did they get off the fucking mailing list? Wikipedia doesn't say.

[–] [email protected] 39 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

It does:

…the paper was reviewed, and its appropriateness for the journal's publishing criteria was rated as "excellent" by the journal's peer-review process. It was accepted for publication with minor editorial changes. The paper was not actually published, as Vamplew declined to pay the required US$150 article processing charge. This case has led commenters to question the legitimacy of the journal as an authentic scholarly undertaking.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

The paper was not actually published, as Vamplew declined to pay the required US$150 article processing charge

At first I was like "come on! Do it for the bit!", but then I remembered that, far from having the "make a Broadway sized song and dance number telling mining mogul Bob Murray to eat shit"* money of Last Week Tonight, scientists tend to be less than extravagant in their capital holdings..

What a way to end the season, though! ❤️😂

*which was nominated for the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Original Music and Lyrics in 2020

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 weeks ago

This case has led commenters to question the legitimacy of the journal as an authentic scholarly undertaking.

Gotta love the "please don't sue us" phrasing there.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago

Oh, thank you. I stopped reading when it started to talk about someone else 9 years later, I thought it would be some other controversy. I wish he crowdsourced the $150 though. I wonder how many citations it could have gotten...

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

I'll never know because there was no TLDR.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 2 weeks ago

The pro-tip no one told me before my publication: make a secondary email/alias to use for your publication because the spam will never stop.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

This and the chicken presentation are my favourite pieces of academic work https://youtu.be/yL_-1d9OSdk

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago

Chicken chicken chicken chicken. Chicken?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago

That's fucking brilliant

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

Really some insightful questions from the audience too.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 weeks ago

Get

your

ing

ing

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago

Did you buy this article from Springer for $19.99?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I feel that after all the shit I get from Academia.edu and Research Gate

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago

This is a work of art