Difference between revisions of "1847: Dubious Study"
(→Added NAOP explanation) |
(→Transcript Added caption) |
||
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
:Cueball: Sure, it says it was accepted for publication. | :Cueball: Sure, it says it was accepted for publication. | ||
:Megan: Where? | :Megan: Where? | ||
− | : | + | :Cueball: Hmm...the national academy of proceedings. |
+ | :Caption: If something is if formatted like a serious scientific paper, it can take me a while to realize it isn't one. | ||
{{comic discussion}} | {{comic discussion}} |
Revision as of 06:27, 7 June 2017
Dubious Study |
Title text: Sounds fine. I looked up the Academy, and it says on their MySpace page that their journal is peer-viewed and downloaded biannually. |
Explanation
This explanation may be incomplete or incorrect: Early Beginnings. If you can address this issue, please edit the page! Thanks. |
This comic is likely about fake/disreputable scientific journals, which often publish articles without proper peer review. The National Academy of Proceeding may be a joke about a journal that publishes any article if they are payed enough.
Transcript
This transcript is incomplete. Please help editing it! Thanks. |
Megan is standing behind Cueball who is at a computer desk.
- Megan: Are you sure this study is legit?
- Cueball: Sure, it says it was accepted for publication.
- Megan: Where?
- Cueball: Hmm...the national academy of proceedings.
- Caption: If something is if formatted like a serious scientific paper, it can take me a while to realize it isn't one.
Discussion
The name of the organisation is suggestive of legitimacy but rather vague. That would be a red flag for me. 108.162.245.166 06:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
"downloaded bi-annually" is misleadingly close to "released bi-annually" --JakubNarebski (talk) 07:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- but I would understand it as if the Journal was only downloaded twice within a year, i.e. only two people have downloaded (and maybe read) the Journal so far. 162.158.92.118 08:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
The National Academy of Proceedings sounds more like a legal document collection than a scientific journal to me. TheSandromatic (talk) 07:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Although biannual conventionally means twice a year, its conflation with biennial (once every two years) is quite common. It would not be unthinkable that this confusion was intentional. ~~108.162.246.71, 15:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- I would only think the confusion was intentional if it was the other way around. If Randall had used "biennially", I could believe the idea was to let people think it was "biannual" - twice a year - but it's even more pathetic, only every two years. To fit in with the rest (letting people read "peer-viewed" as "peer-reviewed" for example) :) - NiceGuy1 108.162.219.64 03:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC) I finally signed up! This comment is mine. NiceGuy1 (talk) 06:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
What size should the references be? 6 pixels is far too small. 141.101.107.150 11:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
- When I saw it yesterday I could ALMOST read it, but I did end up having to zoom in. It's definitely bigger now, I say it's good now. It's bordering on too big for the gag. :) - NiceGuy1 108.162.219.64 03:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC) Also my comment! NiceGuy1 (talk) 06:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)