this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2026
120 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

19292 readers
1557 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Assassassin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 7 hours ago

I mean, he's bad, but he's not Hitler

[–] fonix232@fedia.io 6 points 7 hours ago

Damn you Hitler, not again!

[–] Silic0n_Alph4@lemmy.world 4 points 6 hours ago

I wonder how retracting a man’s papers compares to rejecting him from art school?

[–] dharmacurious@slrpnk.net 19 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Now, I'm aware that I'm on the science memes comm right now, and that you're all much smarter and more enlightened and mature and shit.

But that dudes name is hitler and not one of you has said a word about it, and I find that very disappointing.

[–] BuboScandiacus@mander.xyz 10 points 9 hours ago

Isn’t that the joke ?

[–] Paragone@lemmy.world 31 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

I think that Retraction Watch needs to do an institution leaderboard, to highlight which are the most, & least, corrupt institutions, because corruption's a cultural thing, not merely an individual-thing.

_ /\ _

[–] GorGor@startrek.website 7 points 12 hours ago

Wouldn't that end up with a big survivorship bias? The truly corrupt would have no retractions from authors or institutions and there are potential incentives for publishers to not retract.

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 8 points 13 hours ago

Put this guy on suicide watch and keep him away from his niece.

[–] U7826391786239@piefed.zip 4 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

he's ripe for a great career with openai

[–] sepi@piefed.social 2 points 9 hours ago
[–] flandish@lemmy.world 3 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

curious - as i have only worked in the data pipeline side of research and cohort generation - is it not ok for a researcher to cite their prior work if said work is post peer review?

[–] The_v@lemmy.world 10 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

It's normal to cite your own work if the new paper is a continuation of that research. A references or three is normal and expected.

When somebody publishes a bullshit paper that is eventually withdrawn, every subsequent paper citing the fraudulent work can also be withdrawn as being unreliable.

A sign it's all bullshit is when you see the majority of the citations for the paper from the same author. This usually doesn't pass peer review anymore. In hyperspecialized fields with few researchers, they commonly get a little creative on the introduction section to include other authors.

[–] flandish@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago

makes sense! thanks for the reply.