Timeline for How to deal with sources whose authors I don't have good relationship with?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
23 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 11, 2018 at 18:29 | answer | added | einpoklum | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jul 11, 2018 at 16:23 | vote | accept | Ooker | ||
| Jul 11, 2018 at 16:08 | answer | added | Beentheretoo | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jul 11, 2018 at 4:23 | answer | added | robert bristow-johnson | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jul 11, 2018 at 0:32 | comment | added | xuq01 | @cfr I guess it depends on the field, and on what is rebutted. In some subjects like where you can't really be totally objective, "misrepresenting" and "merely rebutting" could be difficult to discern. One of my professors during my undergraduate got mad at an negative book review in a journal and had some not-so-friendly exchanges with the reviewer (all in an academic journal). Clearly, to him, his book is being misrepresented, but the reviewer thought they were just rebutting. | |
| Jul 11, 2018 at 0:09 | comment | added | cfr | @xuq01 And they shouldn't be unhappy about a rebuttal. It is different if you misrepresent their work (especially if you make it sound absurd). But just rejecting it? That's how it works. (I admit this may vary by discipline, so maybe rebuttal is more reason to be unhappy in some fields.) | |
| Jul 10, 2018 at 20:00 | comment | added | David Richerby | @xuq01 And you could hardly write a rebuttal paper without citing the thing you're rebutting, anyway. | |
| Jul 10, 2018 at 13:23 | comment | added | xuq01 | I have no idea why citing their work will make them unhappy, unless you're, like, writing a rebuttal paper. | |
| Jul 10, 2018 at 12:02 | comment | added | Headcrab | @Ooker I only meant to make a short remark, but OK. | |
| Jul 10, 2018 at 11:58 | answer | added | Headcrab | timeline score: 7 | |
| Jul 10, 2018 at 9:45 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackAcademia/status/1016619390979239937 | ||
| Jul 10, 2018 at 5:01 | comment | added | Ooker | @Headcrab that would be a good answer. Consider to make it as an aswer | |
| Jul 10, 2018 at 4:00 | comment | added | Headcrab | If you work is heavily based on their work, you have two choices: 1. to publish your work, citing their work; 2. not to publish your work (if for whatever personal reason they ask you not to cite them, and for whatever personal reason you decide to comply - I stress personal here, because that's the only kind of reason both of you may have). | |
| Jul 10, 2018 at 2:34 | history | edited | Ooker | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 51 characters in body; added 59 characters in body; added 73 characters in body
|
| Jul 10, 2018 at 2:33 | vote | accept | Ooker | ||
| Jul 11, 2018 at 16:23 | |||||
| Jul 10, 2018 at 2:27 | comment | added | Ooker | @FredS no, there is no need. I just don't want to make the relationship worse | |
| Jul 10, 2018 at 0:34 | comment | added | Captain Emacs | I cannot help putting it as a question rather than an answer: Newton is dead. I want to cite him. Do I need his permission? Or a more mischievous scenario - Leibniz wants to cite Newton on differential calculus. Is he allowed to? Finally, Dawkins - can he stop creationists from citing him? | |
| Jul 9, 2018 at 20:38 | comment | added | Fred S | I don't really understand why you would inform them that you will be citing them in the first place, regardless of your relationship. Is this a common thing to do in your field of research? | |
| Jul 9, 2018 at 19:31 | comment | added | Udank | Maybe you could expand on your last sentence? Why should they wabt to tell you so? | |
| Jul 9, 2018 at 19:13 | answer | added | AppliedAcademic | timeline score: 33 | |
| Jul 9, 2018 at 19:10 | answer | added | Buffy | timeline score: 44 | |
| Jul 9, 2018 at 18:26 | answer | added | Udank | timeline score: 68 | |
| Jul 9, 2018 at 18:19 | history | asked | Ooker | CC BY-SA 4.0 |