3 ms·

Just for the record I think all of this is very reasonable, with a couple of minor caveats. It's not a self advertisement, just an ad for some colleagues. Also

by nmca 9y ago

Just for the record I think all of this is very reasonable, with a couple of minor caveats. It's not a self advertisement, just an ad for some colleagues. Also I think the discussion above is interesting, but operates on the presumption that I demanded a citation. I didn't, I just said they didn't cite something that is (implicitly in my opinion) very relevant. Indeed, it is not always possible or appropriate to cite everything that's very relevant, and their (almost certainly more valid) opinion of what's relevant might vary. Also this seemed like a fun and bizarrely civil discussion for the internet. Well done all.

radarsat1 9y ago
> Also this seemed like a fun and bizarrely civil discussion for the internet. Well done all. :) Just for the record my question was posed as it was because it was in earnest. I actually don't know what's correct. I do agree that the authors should cite as much as possible, yet I react in a weird way when I see people say, why didn't you cite X, Y, Z.. because in one sense citations are necessary for credit attribution, but on the other hand if you truly did something in parallel, without knowledge of another source, does it make sense to cite it, since it's clearly not necessary to explain your work? I suppose it does, since the civility of giving credit where due is part of science, but it also feels a little unfair to behold authors to include similar works that they don't have time to re-implement and compare against for example, and cause them to mention with excuses like, "I just found out about this one 5 minutes ago", or even cause them to delay publication in order to include a brand-new benchmark that was just published a few days before their deadline. Anyways, I think I only asked the question in response to your statement because of the way you posed it, "Y'all didn't cite..", rather than, "You might want to check out for future work.." I do apologize if I interpreted that differently than you intended, but I do think that "didn't cite" does come off more as an accusation than, "you might not be aware of". Re-reading my first paragraph, actually I think it's not so out of the norm to say, "we didn't compare with X,Y,Z because we were not aware of those works sufficiently before the deadline, having been very recently published." It's a different story if the relevant work is like a year or more old I guess.

by nmca 9y ago

radarsat1 9y ago

> Also this seemed like a fun and bizarrely civil discussion for the internet. Well done all. :) Just for the record my question was posed as it was because it was in earnest. I actually don't know what's correct. I do agree that the authors should cite as much as possible, yet I react in a weird way when I see people say, why didn't you cite X, Y, Z.. because in one sense citations are necessary for credit attribution, but on the other hand if you truly did something in parallel, without knowledge of another source, does it make sense to cite it, since it's clearly not necessary to explain your work? I suppose it does, since the civility of giving credit where due is part of science, but it also feels a little unfair to behold authors to include similar works that they don't have time to re-implement and compare against for example, and cause them to mention with excuses like, "I just found out about this one 5 minutes ago", or even cause them to delay publication in order to include a brand-new benchmark that was just published a few days before their deadline. Anyways, I think I only asked the question in response to your statement because of the way you posed it, "Y'all didn't cite..", rather than, "You might want to check out for future work.." I do apologize if I interpreted that differently than you intended, but I do think that "didn't cite" does come off more as an accusation than, "you might not be aware of". Re-reading my first paragraph, actually I think it's not so out of the norm to say, "we didn't compare with X,Y,Z because we were not aware of those works sufficiently before the deadline, having been very recently published." It's a different story if the relevant work is like a year or more old I guess.