via Twitter and retractionwatch, some hilarity that ended up in the published version of a paper*.
Although association preferences documented in our study theoretically could be a consequence of either mating or shoaling preferences in the different female groups investigated (should we cite the crappy Gabor paper here?), shoaling preferences are unlikely drivers of the documented patterns both because of evidence from previous research and inconsistencies with a priori predictions.
Careful what sorts of editorial manuscript comments you let slip through, people.
#AwkwardPublishedEdits "shouldn't you cite Rodriguez? She's on the search committee"
— Drug Monkey (@drugmonkeyblog) November 11, 2014
#awkwardpublishededits
"Make sure to cite the paper that raises my h-index"— Drug Monkey (@drugmonkeyblog) November 11, 2014
#awkwardpublishededits "did any good labs confirm Gun et al 2011 yet?"
— Drug Monkey (@drugmonkeyblog) November 11, 2014
#awkwardpublishededits "Work in a mention of a random paper from the AE in here somewhere…"
— Drug Monkey (@drugmonkeyblog) November 11, 2014
"Don't cite Jones here, everyone knows they faked the key result" #awkwardpublishededits
— Drug Monkey (@drugmonkeyblog) November 11, 2014
__
*apparently the authors are trying to correct the record so it may not last in the official version at the journal.
As a fan of this paper, I am disappointed to see that it has been removed from the online journal. I will now seek to obtain a copy, before it is edited, via ILL, so that I can hang it on my office wall. It might even merit a frame.
I mean, jeez – everyone knows that Gabor’s paper is a piece of crap. It’s not like they said anything that people weren’t already thinking….
This. Is. Awesome. Wish there were more like it. Not setting that trend though…
Oh. My.
Yes. You know, this can happen outside academia, too.
bwahahahahahaha.
HAHAHAHAHAH!
Apparently, they decided NOT to cite the crappy gabor paper after all… lol
I’d hate to be the author of that crappy Gabor paper.
Still funny as hell, though.
It reminds me of a RNA-Seq paper which had “(insert statistical method here)” in the published version — it became a popular (if depressing) joke among bioinformaticians and statisticians for a while.
Gabor might have been crappy, but I bet those cats at least knew how to use track-changes instead of putting their comments in-text like it’s 1991.