RetroFed Forum
Your home away from modern life.
Search Categories Forum list Register Log in
About RetroFed
RetroFed

Welcome to the nostalgia-filled piefed instance of yesteryear.

Open Registration with Application questionnaire.

If you have a question or comment you can post in !meta@retrofed.com or message @DosDude@retrofed.com or @Die4Ever@retrofed.com

In case of downtime and/or emergency, we will post updates on @DosDude@mastodon.social

Some rules we try to uphold:

  • Be civil. Bigotry is not welcome. This includes (but is not limited to): transphobia, queerphobia, racism, ageism and ableism. We do not promote hate.
  • Communities need to be Retro or Retro-adjacent.
  • Please don't upload pornographic content. (use an external image host for that)
75 registered users
Administrators: DosDude, Die4Ever
Visit retrofed.com
Peer review my foot
Post Reply RetroFed Forum Forum Index » Science Memes
AuthorMessage
pseudo jlai.lu pseudo@jlai.lu
Joined: 2023-07-07
Quote
68   Original
Quilotoa lemmy.ca Quilotoa@lemmy.ca
Joined: 2025-04-01
#2 · Quote Reply

Commas are important
12
fubarx lemmy.world fubarx@lemmy.world
Joined: 2024-06-07
#3 · Quote Reply

You said "two of the three reviewers found substantive deficiencies in rationale, design, validation of results, interpretation, and presentation."

So... what is left?
13
Insekticus aussie.zone Insekticus@aussie.zone
Joined: 2025-09-13
#4 · Quote Reply

Marie Curie died in 1934 in her 50s. The page says it was published in a journal of April 2002.

If the editor "knew" Marie enough to have educated discussions with her on her deathbed (at least long enough to be "friends"), let's say the editor was really young in their 20s, that would make the editor at the time of writing in their response in their late 80's to early 90s... working hard at some subpar journal?

Without more detail, the editor's response doesn't pass the sniff test, and it sounds like they're full of shit.
32
OwOarchist pawb.social OwOarchist@pawb.social
Joined: 2026-02-13
#5 · Quote Reply
fubarx wrote:
You said "two of the three reviewers found substantive deficiencies in rationale, design, validation of results, interpretation, and presentation." So... what is left?

Formatting?
13
pseudo jlai.lu pseudo@jlai.lu
Joined: 2023-07-07
#6 · Quote Reply
Quilotoa wrote:
Commas are important

Maybe M. Pupique aimed for a pun.
7
StinkyFingerItchyBum lemmy.ca Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca
Joined: 2025-02-26
#7 · (edited) Quote Reply

unoriginal, plodding, pedestrian and pointless.

Did the peer reviewer call in sick and emergency sub a NYT book reviewer?
19
alastel lemmy.ml alastel@lemmy.ml
Joined: 2025-02-18
#8 · (edited) Quote Reply
Insekticus wrote:
Marie Curie died in 1934 in her 50s. The page says it was published in a journal of April 2002. If the editor "knew" Marie enough to have educated discussions with her on her deathbed (at least long enough to be "friends"), let's say the editor was really young in their 20s, that would make the editor at the time of writing in their response in their late 80's to early 90s... working hard at so...

I looked for the issue on anna's archive, the editor in chief was Martin Zatz, born in 1944, so if it's him yeah he couldn't have met Marie Curie, but there is no confirmation that he was the one answering. However page 156 features two very cute raccoons, so it was worth investigating.

TLDR: couldn't confirm, found raccoons
29
Speiser0 feddit.org Speiser0@feddit.org
Joined: 2024-06-27
#9 · Quote Reply

A predatory journal?
5
Catoblepas piefed.blahaj.zone Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone
Joined: 2025-06-06
#10 · Quote Reply
Insekticus wrote:
Marie Curie died in 1934 in her 50s. The page says it was published in a journal of April 2002. If the editor "knew" Marie enough to have educated discussions with her on her deathbed (at least long enough to be "friends"), let's say the editor was really young in their 20s, that would make the editor at the time of writing in their response in their late 80's to early 90s... working hard at so...

April 2002

April fool’s joke?
8
figjam midwest.social figjam@midwest.social
Joined: 2023-06-22
#11 · Quote Reply
Insekticus wrote:
Marie Curie died in 1934 in her 50s. The page says it was published in a journal of April 2002. If the editor "knew" Marie enough to have educated discussions with her on her deathbed (at least long enough to be "friends"), let's say the editor was really young in their 20s, that would make the editor at the time of writing in their response in their late 80's to early 90s... working hard at so...

This was a reframing of a line from the 1988 vp debate which would have been more familiar in 2002.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senator,_you're_no_Jack_Kennedy
22
pseudo jlai.lu pseudo@jlai.lu
Joined: 2023-07-07
#12 · Quote Reply
figjam wrote:
This was a reframing of a line from the 1988 vp debate which would have been more familiar in 2002. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senator,_you're_no_Jack_Kennedy

Thank you for this piece of context.
9
pseudo jlai.lu pseudo@jlai.lu
Joined: 2023-07-07
#13 · Quote Reply
alastel wrote:
I looked for the issue on anna's archive, the editor in chief was Martin Zatz, born in 1944, so if it's him yeah he couldn't have met Marie Curie, but there is no confirmation that he was the one answering. However page 156 features two very cute raccoons, so it was worth investigating. TLDR: couldn't confirm, found raccoons

Wait! I had flipped through the whole issue and I manage to miss raccoons...
9
Sergio piefed.social Sergio@piefed.social
Joined: 2025-08-01
#14 · Quote Reply
Catoblepas wrote:
April 2002 April fool’s joke?

Yeah I'm like 95% sure this is a joke, and "Chelm institute" is a satirical reference.

Unfortunately I can't pay the $100+ for the journal articles to figure out if that's true or not.
9
DesertCreosote piefed.blahaj.zone DesertCreosote@piefed.blahaj.zone
Joined: 2025-08-25
#15 · Quote Reply
Insekticus wrote:
Marie Curie died in 1934 in her 50s. The page says it was published in a journal of April 2002. If the editor "knew" Marie enough to have educated discussions with her on her deathbed (at least long enough to be "friends"), let's say the editor was really young in their 20s, that would make the editor at the time of writing in their response in their late 80's to early 90s... working hard at so...

Lobachevsky also passed away in 1856, so I doubt he would be referred to as the colleague of anyone from the last hundred or so years before publication.

I did appreciate the reference to “Lobachevsky” by Tom Lehrer, though. (And who deserves the credit / And who deserves the blame? / Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky is his name!)
9
Alexander sopuli.xyz alzymologist@sopuli.xyz
Joined: 2024-11-19
#16 · Quote Reply

3
lemmydripzdotz456 lemmy.world lemmydripzdotz456@lemmy.world
Joined: 2024-03-05
#17 · (edited) Quote Reply
DesertCreosote wrote:
Lobachevsky also passed away in 1856, so I doubt he would be referred to as the colleague of anyone from the last hundred or so years before publication. I did appreciate the reference to “Lobachevsky” by Tom Lehrer, though. (And who deserves the credit / And who deserves the blame? / Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky is his name!)

Remember why the good lord made your eyes
So don't shade your eyes
But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize!
Only, be sure to always call it, please "research"
2
Post Reply
Back to top
Powered by PieFed · PieBB frontend · All times are Europe/Amsterdam