Sad.

I suspect she got an "injection", all right. It may have even been pushed in by a doctor. :dunno:


Gd2Ea6LbQAArNaQ
 
This is a sad sight.

To get a paper published, sometimes you need to deal with reviewers who will coerce you into citing their work or other work they like.

Imagine how that can corrupt writing when researchers don't expose it.

These did:


Gd0cq29WwAA90VG
 
This is a sad sight.

To get a paper published, sometimes you need to deal with reviewers who will coerce you into citing their work or other work they like.

Imagine how that can corrupt writing when researchers don't expose it.


I don't know how commonly this happens. I was both a peer reviewer and had my publications peer reviewed. I never saw this and I never made such recs. But I bet dollars to donuts that these recommendations were put out precisely because the reviewer felt they were APPLICABLE to the research.

It's extremely unlikely that you have any ACTUAL experience with this. So I'm curious why you think you've discovered something meaningful.
 

God, how boring. Yeah we know there are nutty people out there publishing astoundingly weird shit but that isn't the majority of scientific literature.

Stossel does seem to graze on a topic that might be of some concern. The track to tenure (when it hasn't been eliminated by the uni) is one of constant publishing and grant securing. It really robs from the students of the university for whom the university actually exists. It means more classes are taught by TA's or half-assed taught by people who might WANT to teach but are too busy chasing grant funding and publications to do a great job of it.

I once saw one of the most beloved instructors in the department at grad school I was in lose his job because tenure came up and he didn't have enough publications/grants. BUt he was one of the BEST teachers I saw at the uni. It was a real loss that didn't have to happen. All because universities have decided that CASH RULES ALL.
 
Back
Top