Science Memes

11047 readers

3677 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

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

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

Research Committee

!spiders@lemmy.world

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Sal@mander.xyz

fossilesque@mander.xyz

SciBot@mander.xyz

363

Let him go!! (mander.xyz)

submitted 3 weeks ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

17 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] psycho_driver@lemmy.world 37 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

How can we know the over-arching theme and conclusion of this paper without seeing it in it's entirety?

[–] uservoid1@lemmy.world 56 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

You can read it here https://www.scs.stanford.edu/~dm/home/papers/remove.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Journal_of_Advanced_Computer_Technology

In 2005, two scientists, David Mazières and Eddie Kohler, wrote a paper titled Get me off Your Fucking Mailing List and submitted it to WMSCI 2005 (the 9th World Multiconference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics), in protest of the conference's notoriety for its spamming and lax standards for paper acceptance. The paper consisted essentially only of the sentence "Get me off your fucking mailing list" repeated many times, sometimes as illustrations or diagrams.

[–] lemming@sh.itjust.works 23 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

And how did it end? Was it published? Did they get off the fucking mailing list? Wikipedia doesn't say.

[–] BertramDitore@lemm.ee 41 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

It does:

…the paper was reviewed, and its appropriateness for the journal's publishing criteria was rated as "excellent" by the journal's peer-review process. It was accepted for publication with minor editorial changes. The paper was not actually published, as Vamplew declined to pay the required US$150 article processing charge. This case has led commenters to question the legitimacy of the journal as an authentic scholarly undertaking.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

The paper was not actually published, as Vamplew declined to pay the required US$150 article processing charge

At first I was like "come on! Do it for the bit!", but then I remembered that, far from having the "make a Broadway sized song and dance number telling mining mogul Bob Murray to eat shit"* money of Last Week Tonight, scientists tend to be less than extravagant in their capital holdings..

What a way to end the season, though! ❤️😂

*which was nominated for the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Original Music and Lyrics in 2020

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 8 points 3 weeks ago

This case has led commenters to question the legitimacy of the journal as an authentic scholarly undertaking.

Gotta love the "please don't sue us" phrasing there.

[–] lemming@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 weeks ago

Oh, thank you. I stopped reading when it started to talk about someone else 9 years later, I thought it would be some other controversy. I wish he crowdsourced the $150 though. I wonder how many citations it could have gotten...

[–] blackbrook@mander.xyz 3 points 3 weeks ago

I'll never know because there was no TLDR.