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

People Twitter

5226 readers
3052 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
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ohwhatfollyisman@lemmy.world 9 points 4 days 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?

[–] Maalus@lemmy.world 14 points 4 days 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.

[–] porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 19 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days 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."

[–] Nawor3565@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 3 days 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.