Everyone's had this problem: you need to cite a paper in your field. The paper is totally ghastly. You know it's crap, and probably (?) your readers do too.
But you can't not cite it, because it's one of the few precedents relevant to your work--perhaps the only precedent for a certain facet of your work. Perhaps it's well-cited within your field and your failure to cite it would be seen as a glaring omission; perhaps your advisor or a reviewer has told you to cite it. Whatever the cause, you have to reference this bit of rubbish.
You can
1) Cite it. "Our data provide one of the first demonstrations of bleg-de-blug (Loser et al.)"
2) Bury it. "Previous research has not focused on the area of bleg-de-blug (Loser et al.)"
3) Trash it. "With the exception of a dubious report (Loser et al.), our data provide the first demonstration of bleg-de-blug."
4) Trash it cryptically. "Bleg-de-blug is without precedent in this field (Loser et al.)"
Sigh.
And thus does everyone's h-index creep up.
---------------
For the other junkies out there, my odds run thusly:
2:1 Looming indictment/impeachment for ethical problems related to Troopergate.
3:1 Levi's inked a book deal.
6:1 Being blackmailed by Levi or someone else, and needs to raise cash.
10:1 Sex tapes.
18:1 Another pregnancy, hers, Willow's, or Todd's mistress's.
100:1 Actually thinks this is her best route to the presidency.
15 years ago
7 comments:
I like burying it under a bunch of nice happy references: "Related studies on bleg (Smarty et al), blug (Genius et al), and the interaction of bleg and blug (Brainy et al) have demonstrated the importance of this process in fizziwiggs. Loser et al. have also contributed to this field." [Or what-have-you.]
I've been going back through Andrew Sullivan's catalog of the "Odd Lies of Sarah Palin"; rather interesting stuff.
My money's on looming scandal, but not Troopergate. There are other things that have been brewing too.
I don't remember where I read it, but some blog commenter somewhere who claims to be Alaskan and plugged in to Alaskan politics claims it's got something to do with that church fire. Maybe arson?
My money's on an Argentinian lover.
By all means, bury the citation. Come up with the most inconspicuous way to cite their POS paper. That way, you've got it in there, but you're not exactly promoting it.
As for the lovely governor, I'm guessing that someone's been caught having sex with a moose.
Yeah, it could definitely be non-Troopergate--I've been hearing some stuff related to the company that helped build her house.....after she gave them a lucrative government contract to build some Wasilla crap.
But in my blackened, hate-filled liberal heart, I pray atheistically for Levi's book deal.
Or a sex tape with a moose.
And I'm definitely liking this angle:
Wasilla sports complex embezzlement?
You can list a paper in the references without actually mentioning it in the body of your paper.
I like Sarah Palin for being a mother of five and a smart business woman. But her perspective is so darn twisted. I would be happy if I never heard of her again, but I'm afraid that won't happen. She has a way of staying in the news.
Post a Comment