Retraction Watch has a great
post about "a group of Serbian academics who, fed up with the poor
state of their country’s research output, scammed a Romanian magazine by
publishing a completely fabricated article."
Here's
a
link to the manuscript.
The
authors have an excellent grasp on how academic writing can make nothing sound
like something.
The
methods section includes this beauty:
Since, obviously, representative data is often expensive and difficult to provide, we conducted a multidisciplinary programming simulation, using World Wide Web and a statistical programming library to provide random, well-defined populations on which the various methods of data mining are used to discover a plethora of delicately-looking results.
I
laughed.
I
also love the key words: "data mining, randomness studies, hermeneutic
heuristics , EU support."
I
am trying to figure out a way to make it work as a reading on academic writing
and the pitfalls of academese. Whether I succeed or not, it's just fun to know
this is out there.
And if you do go and read the manuscript, don't skip the bibliography.
1 comment:
Glad to see that. I appreciated to see the post.
I will read the site in future .
Pet Food
Post a Comment