Message from @I-VaPE-ChEMtrAiLS
Discord ID: 490034969188630538
Step 4: Start examining the body. You won't really understand why they did anything but you should be able to examine if they make any blatant errors or make random claims without citation.
Step 5: Check the conclusion matches the abstract.
Step 6: If they present data sets, check they look reasonable. Are the units consistent? Is the scale reasonable? Is the sample size reasonable? Did anyone else use this instrument and what did they get?
That's pretty much all you need.
That's a lot of effort
😏
You get a feel for it
I did not do any of that in my undergrad, but then again I was a solid C student until my third year
I will be surprised if you don't check things during your MSc
And also with Zoo its way easier to assume things, it's all very logical
But this year I've been careful about checking things arts papers are not quite as easy to bullshit sources for
You can check bullshit sources if you have journal subscriptions paid for you
Which a lot of academics do
We all know if you used wikipedias citations
It's fine for uni
But
*We know*
I use Google scholar don't worry
The worst I do is cite books on Google books that I can't actually read the whole thing of
Brainlet tier: Wikipedia citations
Brain tier: Google scholar for online free papers and abstracts
Super brain tier: Citing books online
Cosmic brain tier: Citing books from the library not online that nobody will bother to check
Brain tier
Ultra MEGA COSMIC supreme tier:
Haha
ULTIMATE GOD TIER:
Citing *yourself* in another paper which sites the current paper
😏
I've seen people cite themselves, I've never seen anyone do it without being smug
There's a guy on vixra who does mathematics and only cites himself *several* times every single paper
One time he literally remarks that his theorem is true because nobody proved it wrong and he'll fight anyone who tries
The absolute madman
It even has a fucking spelling mistake
This is just advanced shitposting
I mean I believe
We should remove the 7
NASA posted proof of a flat earth
(they didn't)
And everyone learnt that reading more than a sentence of a academic paper is... required.
One from 1985 where flat data received from satalities made into a sphere worked just as well as more accurate data
It's always a bit of a shame when people send scientific papers without fully reading them, because as satisfying as it is to watch someone go through each point to show the opposite of what was presented, it does reinforce the whole science isn't for everyone and is full of elitists thing.