next »

[gift_horse]

Has anyone seen this?

It's fairly new, I think, that Google Books would push its service this way.  Also, check out the "Generate a Quote" feature on the right. This will make me ever so suspicious of students attempting to be clever by inserting a catch-all reference quote in their paper intro or conclusion.

Thoughts?

[sciencephd]

Well, if they use this as a source to plagiarize from it will be very easy to catch.  Perhaps they can do both: market this source to students, then sell a plagiarism search engine to universities.  But perhaps they are not that sleazy.

[polly_mer]

Hmmm.  Well, my most recent WTF reaction to a paper wasn't from a student, but I bet the authors used something like this.  It would certainly explain why they were so excited about comparing to a model that was dismissed as wrong nearly as soon as it was published fifty years ago.  The only reference I could find to that work in the past thirty years was in a google book search of a known to be iffy reference book for my field.

[sciencephd]

Hmmm.  Well, my most recent WTF reaction to a paper wasn't from a student, but I bet the authors used something like this.  It would certainly explain why they were so excited about comparing to a model that was dismissed as wrong nearly as soon as it was published fifty years ago.  The only reference I could find to that work in the past thirty years was in a google book search of a known to be iffy reference book for my field.

Were they from overseas by any chance ?

[blokus]

I don't have a problem with this. I use Google Books and Amazon search inside the book for such things myself.

Wath is it that you're worried about, exactly?

[polly_mer]

Hmmm.  Well, my most recent WTF reaction to a paper wasn't from a student, but I bet the authors used something like this.  It would certainly explain why they were so excited about comparing to a model that was dismissed as wrong nearly as soon as it was published fifty years ago.  The only reference I could find to that work in the past thirty years was in a google book search of a known to be iffy reference book for my field.

Were they from overseas by any chance ?

Yes, they were.  However, oddly, they are in a first-world country and at an institution that I expect to have a decent library with a full range of subscriptions.  At least, other people from that institution publish excellent research that shows an awareness of the conventions of the field so I was doubly shocked when I reviewed this paper.  I am accustomed to scientists from some countries using out-of-date ideas or primarily citing work in fourth-tier journals, but these people should have had the resources to do an adequate literature review.

[sciencephd]

Hmmm.  Well, my most recent WTF reaction to a paper wasn't from a student, but I bet the authors used something like this.  It would certainly explain why they were so excited about comparing to a model that was dismissed as wrong nearly as soon as it was published fifty years ago.  The only reference I could find to that work in the past thirty years was in a google book search of a known to be iffy reference book for my field.

Were they from overseas by any chance ?

Yes, they were.  However, oddly, they are in a first-world country and at an institution that I expect to have a decent library with a full range of subscriptions.  At least, other people from that institution publish excellent research that shows an awareness of the conventions of the field so I was doubly shocked when I reviewed this paper.  I am accustomed to scientists from some countries using out-of-date ideas or primarily citing work in fourth-tier journals, but these people should have had the resources to do an adequate literature review.

When I see that type of thing, it is usally from Asia.

[polly_mer]

Hmmm.  Well, my most recent WTF reaction to a paper wasn't from a student, but I bet the authors used something like this.  It would certainly explain why they were so excited about comparing to a model that was dismissed as wrong nearly as soon as it was published fifty years ago.  The only reference I could find to that work in the past thirty years was in a google book search of a known to be iffy reference book for my field.

Were they from overseas by any chance ?

Yes, they were.  However, oddly, they are in a first-world country and at an institution that I expect to have a decent library with a full range of subscriptions.  At least, other people from that institution publish excellent research that shows an awareness of the conventions of the field so I was doubly shocked when I reviewed this paper.  I am accustomed to scientists from some countries using out-of-date ideas or primarily citing work in fourth-tier journals, but these people should have had the resources to do an adequate literature review.

When I see that type of thing, it is usally from Asia.

Yes, that's usually where I see it, too, which is why I was surprised to see it from these researchers.  None of the authors even have names that lead me to infer graduate students from small schools in isolated parts of Asia who hadn't been acculturated to the norms.  What I suspect happened is this paper was submitted somewhere else and rejected for lack of theoretical corroboration.  To make a deadline, someone slapped together a comparison with the first theory found that had a straightforward closed-form solution and sent the paper back out to a journal that is known for being lenient toward theory.