this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2025
553 points (98.6% liked)

Science Memes

17736 readers
2049 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
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dustyData@lemmy.world 18 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (2 children)

She probably did. But the reviewer won't know that as the paper (should) get anonymized before review. The author's own name will be censored all the way throughout the paper with certain publishers.

[–] trolske@feddit.org 7 points 3 hours ago

Depending on field, double-blind reviews are rare. In ecology I had maybe one or two reviews in 5 years that were double-blinded, normally you see the author list as a reviewer

[–] fushuan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

I doubt that since the comment was a suggestion to read and cite herself. If she did cite herself the assumption would be that she did read the citations so the comment would be moot, no? Why would they suggest to cite herself if she already did?

They only anonymize the author, not the citations right?

Because the reviewer didn't actually read the paper