3 ms·
Agreed. Who the heck inserts a citation into a paper without actually reading the source material? Maybe ChatGPT is a great way to reveal the frauds.
by xphilter 4y ago
Agreed. Who the heck inserts a citation into a paper without actually reading the source material? Maybe ChatGPT is a great way to reveal the frauds.
- elil17 4y agoSounds like it got inserted into a draft. She did read the source material, just after that draft.
- pietro72ohboy 4y agoExactly. You're supposed to read and cite carefully, not just "citation dump" articles in favour of whatever argument you're trying to make.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- burnished 4y agoMy experience doing that is that this is not common practice - talking about following up on a reference to find it actually refutes a claim, or more commonly that a citation has little to do with what it is being cited for (more extrapolation than a completely inappropriate use). I agree with your should, but I do not think it is a realistic expectation right now.
- falcor84 4y agoAs I see it, even if the only positive impact the ChatGPT ends up having on the world is in forcing researchers to double-check citations, then "mission fucking accomplished".
- quantified 4y agoThere are so many garbage papers in various venues that maybe it's a good idea. It forces readers to check them too, this puts them all on the lookout.
- btilly 4y agoYes, you're SUPPOSED to do that. But in practice people are more likely to read you if you cite them. Furthermore reviewers are more likely to accept your paper if you cite the papers that they think are important. So the INCENTIVE is cite as liberally as you can.
- thesuitonym 4y agoEvery undergrad ever.