revenge on the referee
Our news colleagues Jacob Aaron and Michael Le Page drew attention to feedback on a post on social media site BlueSky that highlighted a scientific paper with reverence.
The study in question was recently conducted published in International Hydrogen Energy Journal. There are 7 authors. It's about how hydrogen atoms can penetrate certain metal alloys and cause them to become brittle. To understand the mechanism of this embrittlement, we focus on calculating precisely where hydrogen atoms are located in the metal's crystal structure.
At this point, you may be wondering what this survey does with feedback. Well, the introduction ends with the next paragraph. [[35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]” has nothing to do with it.
For those who have never worked in academia, the best way to describe this is that the authors are spectacularly sneaky. Their paper was reviewed by anonymous reviewers, who (along with other suggestions) encouraged them to cite the 13 older studies on the list. The authors had no choice but to insert supposedly irrelevant studies, so they refused to incorporate them into the actual text and instead called attention to their irrelevance. However, I included them.
or blue sky user @Dave nʎ=2dsinɵ :protein: Please enter: “absolute shot I was fired.” By the way, kudos to @Dave nʎ=2dsinɵ :protein: for pushing the username new scientistWe have revised the fonts to the limit and submitted feedback to search engines. The little equation in the middle that we discovered is Bragg's law, which describes how a crystal lattice scatters incoming waves.
Anyway, once the feedback stopped flashing back to us during our brief period in academia, something like this happened to us, but we didn't have the courage to go back to print, we did our due diligence and listed all 13 references. I looked into it.
All of them concern alloys and other composite materials, but none seem to concern hydrogen embrittlement. The feedback was pretty overwhelming in our attempts to fully understand, as most are very technical. Readers familiar with composite materials are welcome to attend regular talks. Still, despite our poor understanding, none of the references seem to be directly relevant.
However, I found the feedback strange. The same authors appeared multiple times in the author lists of 13 studies, and one author was involved in all studies.
Feedback doesn't want to wear a tinfoil hat, especially if it's brittle with hydrogen. However, it is questionable whether anonymous reviewers could be identified. The question we have now is how did this get printed? Did the editor not notice the prank, or did he allow it for his own reasons? Inquiring minds want to know.
Shady story
Speaking of incorporating ideas from colleagues, associate editor Sam Wong flagged an interesting study. water resources research. I'll admit this diary isn't one of Feedback's daily readers, but it seems like we missed it.
of study This piece is about the Biblical miracle of the loaves and fishes, in which Jesus supposedly fed 5,000 people using five loaves and two fish. The authors propose a naturalistic explanation: a seiche or standing wave. The idea is that the waves blowing into the lake sometimes create standing waves that cause deeper water to rise to the surface. The deep waters of Lake Kinneret, the Biblical Sea of Galilee, are low in oxygen, so when oxygen rises to the surface, fish can suffocate en masse.
The authors document two such events at Lake Kinneret in 2012. They also point out that they appear to be extremely rare. No such event has occurred since 2012. That means most people may not have been aware of the possibility, especially if they've traveled before. I lacked the local knowledge to listen to charismatic speakers.
Feedback has led to a long list of scientific explanations for seemingly supernatural occurrences, including that manna from heaven is nectar crystallized from scale insects, and that infrasonic waves tend to cause eerie sensations that can be interpreted as ghosts. This is being added to. We also removed our tinfoil hats because we were worried that they might act as a conductor for the sacred lightning.
moon of uranus
News from this issue's cover that Voyager 2 visited Uranus in 1986, thanks to a gust of solar wind, and Uranus wasn't in its normal state. As a result, many of our ideas about Uranus need to be reconsidered, and some believe there may even be life on one or more of its moons.
Are you saying there is life on Uranus? Is there actually life on Uranus' moons? I hope you're not a Klingon. or as writer Tess Stenson put it down: NASA, “Let's go for Uranus.”
Feedback took longer than necessary to come up with a pun, but the blank slate was wiped clean. One bright spark, conscious of the joke about planet names, decided to name all of Uranus' moons after Shakespearean characters, choosing respectable names like Rosalind and Oberon. This means we can rule out the possibility of life on any of the moons. Juliet is definitely lifeless. There was a play about it. Meanwhile, astronomers urgently need to find a few more moons so that Uranus can enter Bottom's orbit.
Have a story for feedback?
Send it to feedback@newscientist.com or New Scientist, 9 Derry Street, London, W8 5HY.
Review of items posted in the post will be delayed.
You can email your article to Feedback at feedback@newscientist.com. Please enter your home address. This week's and past feedback can be found on our website.
Source: www.newscientist.com
