Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Rejected Scientific Paper Recycled as an Ad

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the to-each-according-to-his-ability-to-pay dept.

Roland Piquepaille writes "In this article, The Scientist reveals a curious and probably unique story. Two years ago, a researcher at Brown University submitted a paper to a scientific medicine journal. Then he received a note from the editor saying that his paper would not interest the journal readers. Thinking that his article was unfairly rejected before peer review, he decided to publish a two-page ad with the contents of his paper in the same journal. He even asked readers if they thought the contents interesting and received 33 positive replies. Read this summary before telling me what you think and if you've heard about a similar story."

17 of 123 comments (clear)

  1. Years by metalhed77 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    I've been a member of this website for years and I just want to voice the fact that I'm pissed off at yet another Roland Piquepaille article. And yes, I'm posting this at +2, gotta use that karma for something useful.

    --
    Photos.
    1. Re:Years by QuantumG · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      It's because he's french isn't it? I can understand that.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:Years by NanoGator · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      "It's because he's french isn't it? I can understand that."

      It's because bitching about Roland is a sign of status.

      If somebody were really offended by Roland, they'd know that the best way to get this guy off the air is to not up the post count by bitching about him.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    3. Re:Years by metalhed77 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      If somebody were really offended by Roland, they'd know that the best way to get this guy off the air is to not up the post count by bitching about him.


      That's monumentally stupid. You're saying that a higher percentage of posts complaining about said post will help him? Esp. when said post is rated at +5 and has community support?
      --
      Photos.
    4. Re:Years by daviddennis · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Since the article itself was listed before the "summary" written by Piquepaille, I don't see anything wrong with it being published. It was a very interesting article, at least to me, because I'm interested in learning more about how scientific journals work.

      I did think it was odd how you were encouraged to go to the "summary", but I read the article without going there and therefore the submission did not achieve Mr Piquepaille's goals of more hits for his site.

    5. Re:Years by metalhed77 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I went to the summary first.

      --
      Photos.
    6. Re:Years by NanoGator · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      "That's monumentally stupid. You're saying that a higher percentage of posts complaining about said post will help him? Esp. when said post is rated at +5 and has community support?"

      Yes, absolutely. Slashdot's ad driven. More comments == more ads served. More ads serve == more ad revenue. By posting Roland stories, they're benefitting themselves. They don't give a rat's ass what the community thinks. If they did, would we see dupes ever again?

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    7. Re:Years by metalhed77 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      You're just exceedingly cynical. Ultimately, they realize if they keep this shit up people will leave.

      Ever wonder why Katz is gone?

      --
      Photos.
    8. Re:Years by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 1, Offtopic
      Look,
      • Contrary to that article, many Piquepaille stories are not accepted.
      • All his stories now contain links to primary sources as their first and most prominent links, and his blog only as a secondary link.
      • Some Piquepaille stories are interesting and informative. Though I readily admit that some are inane and shouldn't have been posted.
      • The ads are quite small and unobtrusive. As I type this, one of them is for an algorithmic music composing program, which I think is cool. You don't see ads for algorithmic music composing programs just anywhere.
      • The amount of money Roland makes is immaterial. It's not like it comes out of your pocket. He doesn't run flashing "punch the monkey" ads. Nothing is stopping you from getting a piece of the action by posting your own articles, either. All that matters here is the quality of his posted articles.
      • Finally, and most importantly, what Roland Piquepaille does is nearly identical to what Slashdot does, in every way! Let me describe his process: he looks for articles in mainstream news sources, writes a little summary, cites a paragraph or two, and posts it. That's actually better than Slashdot; here the paragraphs are usually plagarized, and yet somehow misspelled and filled with grammar errors. Slashdot runs ads too, you know. Slashdot is also making money off of your eyeballs by basically copying article text from primary news sources. They don't even do the research themselves, they rely on other people to plagarize the articles for them! Many Slashdot articles are of an even lower quality than Piquepaille's worst.
      I completely fail to understand the animosity that Slashdot readers have toward Roland Piquepaille. Is it because he seems to be French? Or what?
      --
      main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
    9. Re:Years by NanoGator · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      "You're just exceedingly cynical."

      Maybe. On the other hand, when Katz was around, Slashdot wasn't completely ad supported.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    10. Re:Years by Suppafly · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I wonder how much money he is making off the google ads from the slashdotting we are giving him.

    11. Re:Years by Kalak · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Content is accepted or rejected by "peer" geeks. Calling them editors is really a misnomer, since they obviously don't edit, they just review and decide if a submission is worth of posting to /.

      Reviewing submissions is the key here. Editing really isn't their function, as editing implies they have a direct effect on the content, instead of being gatekeepers. (Some editorialize more than others though.)

      --
      I am, and always will be, an idiot. Karma: Coma (mostly effected by .hack)
  2. Re:such a nice move by muzik4machines · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    and why do i always post at minus1, it's like my 10th post and my karma said terrible, even i i never posted anything than nice replies in my time here i don't get it

    --
    Muzik.4.Machines
  3. Don't join stories in which you have no interest. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1, Offtopic


    Please don't visit and comment on Slashdot discussions in which you have no interest.

    I find that I am interested in only about one-twentieth of the articles on Slashdot. I was interested in this article, and was surprised to see people doing an anger trip over it.

    Three points: 1) Roland does not have much chance of making money from his Slashdot articles. (See quote below.) 2) He puts a lot of work into his articles, which may be the reason they get accepted by Slashdot. 3) By complaining unreasonably, you have made him more famous. I was only vaguely aware of him until now, because of a few complaining comments. I didn't know he had a web site of his own until now.

    Quote from a comment to an article objecting to Roland's articles, which are sometimes posted on Slashdot:

    "I have not seen a SINGLE slashdot article attributed to Roland that requires travelling through his blog.

    "Every single time I have seen his articles, the header always links to his sources. Only at the footer do you have the option to go to his site and see a more thorough writeup.

    "I have never been forced to view Roland's site just to see the article.

    "Compare and contrast with an article posted from the NY Times...."

  4. MOD PARENT DOWN; PARENT IS CONTENT-FREE by Quattro+Vezina · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Go back to anti-slash, asshat.

    --
    I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
  5. Re:Don't join stories in which you have no interes by deglr6328 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    "He puts a lot of work into his articles, which may be the reason they get accepted by Slashdot."

    Are you serious? Really? You honestly think that this is "a lot of work"? That is incredibly sad. Virtually the entire "article" consists of blocks of direcct quotations from press releases and other primary sources. Just like every single article he's ever posted. He then embelishes with a sprinkling of phony fluff commentary ("ohh tell me what YOU think!") merely to stave of accusations of plagairism (which he has been rightly accused of in the past).

    "Please don't visit and comment on Slashdot discussions in which you have no interest."

    So you don't see fit to take your own advice when it's YOU who has an opinion on something not pertaining directly to the article though right? Funny, that.

    --
    - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
  6. Yes, it is a lot of work... by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 0, Offtopic


    Yes, it is a lot of work, and so is Slashdot. How can you object to Roland, but not object to Slashdot?

    I have an interest in Roland's article, and I am commenting because I don't want to see them discouraged.