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

Science Memes

17736 readers
2466 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
[–] it_depends_man@lemmy.world 143 points 1 day ago (8 children)

If you write something that you base on your previous work, but you don't cite your previous work, that's a problem.

How is the peer reviewer supposed to know who the author is, I thought obfuscating that was the whole point...

[–] oyfrog@lemmy.world 29 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

Not always—it depends on the publisher for sure, and possibly the field (e.g., physics, chemistry).

In biology, you have several models for peer review. Completely blind reviews where both reviewers and authors are anonymized. You also have semi blind models where the reviewers know the identities of the authors, but the authors don't know reviewers' identities. You also have open reviews where everyone knows one another's identities.

In completely blind and semi-blind models, you occasionally have reviewers that reveal their identity.

[–] errer@lemmy.world 11 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

In physics nothing is blinded, and people post their shit to the arxiv when they submit anyway

[–] oyfrog@lemmy.world 2 points 14 hours ago

Yeah, preprints are becoming more common in bio too.

load more comments (5 replies)