fossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 12 days agoI think there's an imposter amongusmander.xyzimagemessage-square35fedilinkarrow-up1871arrow-down113
arrow-up1858arrow-down1imageI think there's an imposter amongusmander.xyzfossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 12 days agomessage-square35fedilink
minus-squareeru@mouse.chitanda.moelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up33arrow-down1·11 days agoif you state something based on previous work in the field even if its your own you should still cite it…
minus-squareDoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up23·11 days agoThe implication that the reviewer thinks they’re stupid and need to read more papers and try again. Not that they’re mis-citing works.
minus-squareAgent641@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6·11 days agoNo should, but must. In Academia, stupid as it is, if you use or cite previous work of yours without citing it, it’s plagiarism.
minus-squareProfessorPeregrine@reddthat.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up12·11 days agoIt’s not stupid. Anyone reading needs to know where a statement or conclusion comes from in case they need to check and see how that conclusion was reached in the first place.
if you state something based on previous work in the field even if its your own you should still cite it…
The implication that the reviewer thinks they’re stupid and need to read more papers and try again.
Not that they’re mis-citing works.
No should, but must.
In Academia, stupid as it is, if you use or cite previous work of yours without citing it, it’s plagiarism.
It’s not stupid. Anyone reading needs to know where a statement or conclusion comes from in case they need to check and see how that conclusion was reached in the first place.