This is why I hate it so much when authors overstate their findings in abstract, which unfortunately is extremely common in medicine.
I write my papers then find sources. Confirmation bias at its finest
Isn’t this how everyone does it?
This is the way.
As a scientific researcher I am amazed at everyone being all like “yeah me too.”
#WHAT
How you about to be citing something without being 100% sure it actually supports your claim? That shit could easily have a bunch of qualifications you don’t know about!
#ALSO
Bruh. If it’s worth citing, it’s worth reading the whole paper. You might learn something or gain inspiration for future work. Plus, you know, always be learnin, yo.
…
You guys are gonna hate me.
I was aiding in a peer review and was diligently checking citations and sources to find that the majority of sources used had relevant titles but did not support the claims the author was making… I pointed these out and was removed from reviewing with the professor saying I needed to offer positive comments only ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
(┛◉Д◉)┛
Sometimes. Sometimes it’s an intro sentence that already has 2 citations and just needs a 3rd, and you just find a paper with more measurements and the same conclusions.
Ain’t nobody reading papers they quote. Academics are frauds.
Best I can do is abstract and discussion. Take it or leave it.
don’t forget skimming the paper for quotes and or handy graphs if you’re feeling ambitious
TIL I was ambitious. And here I thought my attitude of, “I can skip these 2 papers and still have a solid C,” made me kind of a bum. NOPE! I skimmed so many papers.
deleted by creator
If there is, I sure as shit don’t know.
Cite the people who already quoted the source (The internet, as cited in Lemmy, 2024).
Lemmy et al
Excuse me, where is your doi link?
Back in the game are you, James Soterton?
Team Lemmy, 2024
Or cite their work based on titles… Meh, close enough.
Sometimes it pays off checking methods too.
Lol at that paper.
My favorite part about Dunning-Kruger is that I see extremely wrong explanations of it all the time. While being wrong isn’t exactly what Dunning-Kruger is about, it’s usually what those wrong explanations think it’s about.
It’s almost like you should read the whole paper.
Honestly if the abstract can’t deliver a succinct and accurate summary of the findings and their limitations, then it’s probably a bad paper that you wouldn’t want to cite.
I think, the bigger problem is when the abstract tells that everything is all nice and simple, but in reality it’s not
… Is it ever?
If you have to end every sentence with outliers aside… Then maybe people should understand that they are talking about the norm. Not your fringe anecdotal cases lol.
I’ve been far away from academia for a long time, but last time I read papers on voice processing it went something like this:
Abstract: we’ve achieved [very good results] using this one simple trick…
Body: actually, we will maybe not tell what was the corpus we used to measure how good we are. We’re also going to omit several important steps where they can be omitted nonchalantly, so that reproducing what seems to be a thorough description will be a pain
So, I don’t know if it ever is all nice and simple, but man could it be better if things were always done in good faith and professionally
Playing 4D chess here - I write what I already think, find someone else who said it, and reference them.
Can confirm, my professor wife say yes, this is what she does.
Wait… Babe? She looks 15.
Okay, but she’s about 29.
