Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 09:44:55 UTC No. 16240781

>>16240779
Introductions are bullshit anyway

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 09:52:41 UTC No. 16240788

>>16240781
I actually like this as sort of modern subversion of academic bullshit. Too much about writing a paper is paper writing and too little is actual science. Not going to comment on the paper itself, it's probably just junk but I would like to see some respected writers make a good study and then let gpt write most of the actual text as a fuck you to the editors.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 09:57:47 UTC No. 16240793

>>16240781
FPBP. Fuck introductions.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 10:43:52 UTC No. 16240833

>>16240779
Why is the review process so shit that no one told them to get rid of that line?

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 11:53:34 UTC No. 16240893

>>16240779
How do I reference two different papers if they're both written by Chang dated 2021?

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 16:18:17 UTC No. 16241211

>>16240781
This.
If you're an expert in that field, you wouldn't need it. If you're not an expert, go read papers of your expertise, that puny intro won't help you anyway.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 17:02:04 UTC No. 16241264

>>16240781
But isnt it important to explain why the research might alleviate global warming?

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 05:39:53 UTC No. 16242234

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jZCSC5LU-I

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 17:49:42 UTC No. 16242852

>>16240893
If APA: (Chang, 2021a) & (Chang, 2021b)
If IEEE: its just numbers [x] [y] so no need to worry

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 18:02:47 UTC No. 16242871

>>16242852
What if I want to reference >=27 Chang papers from the same year

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 18:14:50 UTC No. 16242899

>>16242871
(Chang, 2021(1)), (Chang, 2021(2)) etc.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 00:54:42 UTC No. 16244890

>>16240779
Chinks are so scummy