How soon before someone is citing this article as evidence? 😩
Referencing this parody as if it’s a serious study should be ground the rejection or retraction.
I wonder if journals and reviewers have tools to help detect fake and/or retracted study in references. Some already screen for the phrase “vegetative electron microscopy”.
The earth is only 6001 years old [1]!
😩
We’re expected to believe that the peacocks personally recounted their lineage? In English? I feel like the author is just making things up at that point.
I first went about the humane capture of the wildlife of C-100. A few peacocks were caught with bear traps, an iguana was captured via a falling piano, and a peacock bass was shot in the face with a shotgun, all in line with the standards set by the Florida Constitution [3].
Truly gold.
Edit: Didn’t realize this was Immaterial Science - my favorite is the FUPLC-NMR-CE6-GC-IR-ICP-MS-MS-MS-MS (pdf warning)
At first I thought it was satire, but when I saw the writer had the scientific Pokédex entries I knew it was legit
I was tired of being a Darwinist. Now I follow the writings of Dickens; I’m a Dickhead.
You got me. This one is too good.
The first tell was the author using the first person, and the next tell was the piano falling.
2 Miami-Dade College, Kendall, FL, USA Department of Fictional Geology
Thankful I saw that first, very relieved.
I only read the abstract. So I missed the piano falling part entirely.
“I first went about the humane capture of the wildlife of C-100. A few peacocks were caught with bear traps, an iguana was captured via a falling piano, and a peacock bass was shot in the face with a shotgun, all in line with the standards set by the Florida Constitution [3].”
There are pokédex entry # for fossils!
That is exactly what clued me in.
My fave part was the expired crispr kits, arbitrarily cut off at desired date.
The inclusion of Pokédex Entry numbers is great.
Also, I like the sources cited for the paper. One of them is “Pigeon-Elephant Theory: the real origin of humans – Journal of Astrological Big Data Ecology by B McGraw”Is there money in writing crap “research” papers like this?
I would be fine doing this under a pseudonym. But I know UFO researchers really have to hustle a ton. So maybe not?
People also do this to take the piss out of a junk journal. Usually ones that let anything through
Ooooohhhh… That’s a thing? Let me guess, I have to pay to publish my ChatGPT-authored “research” proving that cats are actually aliens?
I have no idea, but I am guessing the religious right pays handsomely for anything “scientific” which supports their absolutely asinine beliefs.
Clicked thinking it was legit. Good find OP!
Thanks!
Only a few bites because people, understandably, aren’t biting that headline.
Share a screenshot of the article instead and they’ll be all over it.
