Post AnwMM1MgeYWQLIPMYq by gkalinkat@det.social
 (DIR) More posts by gkalinkat@det.social
 (DIR) Post #AnwMLvsN3qIjJpBa76 by gkalinkat@det.social
       2024-11-11T15:13:51Z
       
       0 likes, 1 repeats
       
       Couldn't make this 💩 up:"As strongly requested by the reviewers, here we cite some references [[35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]] although they are completely irrelevant to the present work" 🤦 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319924043957#academicpublishing #openscience#science
       
 (DIR) Post #AnwMLyYd5hIBdSyMG8 by gkalinkat@det.social
       2024-11-11T15:14:22Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       seen on reddit r/academia
       
 (DIR) Post #AnwMM1MgeYWQLIPMYq by gkalinkat@det.social
       2024-11-11T15:15:51Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       cc @brembs
       
 (DIR) Post #AnwMgj2txTcrbl1gzA by Chia@lamp.leemoon.network
       2024-11-11T17:43:10.339Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @gkalinkat@det.social The most interesting part: using the links to the bibliography, you can easily identify a couple of repeating names. It's probably one or two reviewers. In fact, this is an example of a very good strategy for combating idiocy in scientific journals, provided that the editor does not change this phrase and publishes the edits as is.