when rereading this mailbox The other day, I noticed a post that just arrived.
i follow Link And I came across a funny story about a researcher who, after one of his papers was criticized, responded: „Time with family? An 11-year-old essay attack by a former classmate? Guitar practice?“ one critic wrote with appropriate disdain.
This comment exemplifies the tendency of some authors to view publications as works in a coffin, buried so deep that it can never be opened again, lest the skeleton inside escape. But is much of the published literature really useful to science? . . Vast graveyard of undead theories?
Agree. In other words, yes, haha, spend your time practicing your guitar instead of digging up published articles from 11 years ago. got it.I accept that as long as you also accept that we shouldn't. Quote Article from 11 years ago.
As is often the case, authors of published works are happy to get positive publicity and citations without thinking, but when something negative comes in, they pull up the drawbridge. It will be.
From the point of view of Ladder for responding to criticism, the above actions aren't all that bad: they're suing their critics, they're using proxies to attack their critics, they're labeling someone a suicide bomber or East German secret police. Instead, I'm just trying to laugh it off.from scientific But from a perspective, the act is still pretty bad because there's something wrong with discussing the flaws of a paper that's 10 years old and still gets cited.
put together a list
Anyway, this made me come up with an interesting project. It lists all the different ways researchers try to avoid addressing legitimate criticism of their published work.
Here are some of the answers we saw. I'm not going to bother finding the links now, but once I have a good list I can go back and provide references for all the links.
1. The amendments do not affect the main results of the paper. (Always a popular claim, even if there is actually a fix) do Affects the main results of the paper. )
2. Critics are paranoid/Stasi/terrorists/etc., so their criticism should be dismissed. javert's paradox. )
3. Critics are jealous losers who are sniping at the winners. Or, if it doesn't work, the critic is blaming the hapless young researcher. (I don't think it would be advantageous for researchers of any age to exempt their work from criticism.)
4. If the review process is not followed, the criticism will be unfair. (This claim is difficult to accept, given how the peer review process is rigged against criticism of published papers.)
5. Criticism should be done discreetly between the author and the critic, and not in public. (Those who claim to have such attitudes, however, seem to have no problem with their work being cited or praised in public.)
The most common response to criticism seems to be to ignore it completely and hope it goes away. Unfortunately, this strategy often seems to work very well.