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

Science Memes

10743 readers
3704 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.


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
 
top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] badelf@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 13 hours ago

Did you buy this article from Springer for $19.99?

[–] IndiBrony@lemmy.world 10 points 15 hours ago

Get

your

ing

ing

[–] psycho_driver@lemmy.world 34 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

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

[–] blackbrook@mander.xyz 1 points 3 hours ago

I'll never know because there was no TLDR.

[–] uservoid1@lemmy.world 51 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours 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.

[–] lemming@sh.itjust.works 23 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] BertramDitore@lemm.ee 37 points 17 hours 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.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 7 points 11 hours 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.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 8 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours 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

[–] lemming@sh.itjust.works 4 points 15 hours 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...

[–] cRazi_man@lemm.ee 20 points 19 hours 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.

[–] SquirrelX@lemmy.world 12 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (3 children)

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

[–] restingboredface@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 hours ago

Really some insightful questions from the audience too.

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 3 points 13 hours ago

That's fucking brilliant

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 4 points 16 hours ago

Chicken chicken chicken chicken. Chicken?

[–] mvirts@lemmy.world 4 points 15 hours ago

This is a work of art

[–] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.world 7 points 20 hours ago

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

[–] propter_hog@hexbear.net 5 points 19 hours ago

Anybody got a ref to the original publication?