<story><title>Turing awardees republished key methods and ideas without credit</title><url>https://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/ai-priority-disputes.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>lacker</author><text>Whenever you cite papers just because you&amp;#x27;re &amp;quot;politically supposed to&amp;quot;, even though you don&amp;#x27;t think it&amp;#x27;s really intellectually useful for anyone to be aware of the cited paper, you&amp;#x27;re making the citations less useful for everybody.&lt;p&gt;Schmidhuber is only the worst of many abusers of the citation system. Everyone knows that anonymous reviewers are more likely to approve of people who cite their work. Someone is politically powerful? Better cite their paper, even though you don&amp;#x27;t really think it&amp;#x27;s a good paper and you didn&amp;#x27;t use it.&lt;p&gt;Schmidhuber is cited far more often than he should be, because people just don&amp;#x27;t want to deal with this crap, and the cost of sticking in one more citation is very low.</text></item><item><author>calf</author><text>But it is possible that he ought to have been cited as well? It doesn&amp;#x27;t matter if he&amp;#x27;s a hypocrite. The justification ultimately has to be, &amp;quot;Our paper did not use your work in any substantial way therefore a citation is not needed.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;I can see how citations can get very complex for the purposes of scientific credit, traditionally there&amp;#x27;s a self-policed aspect to it in every academic community; however, in this century as advanced research gets more complex and globalized, it might be time for a more rigorous and neutral process of doing so.</text></item><item><author>SeanLuke</author><text>We published a paper a while back in a genetic programming conference, and before the paper had been published (only the title was announced) Schmidhuber guessed that we had not cited his work.  He very publically put us through the wringer for not citing him as the inventor of the concept were were examining.  In fact we had &lt;i&gt;not&lt;/i&gt; cited him: but among our dozen or so previous examples, we had cited two &lt;i&gt;others&lt;/i&gt; which long predated his work and were the actual seminal papers.  He had failed to cite them himself.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>jahsome</author><text>&amp;gt; Whenever you cite papers just because you&amp;#x27;re &amp;quot;politically supposed to&amp;quot;, even though you don&amp;#x27;t think it&amp;#x27;s really intellectually useful for anyone to be aware of the cited paper, you&amp;#x27;re making the citations less useful for everybody.&lt;p&gt;The audacity of deciding on behalf of readers whether information is valuable to them when publishing an academic paper is quite an interesting concept to me.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m not published in journals, but I do have a &amp;quot;professional&amp;quot; writing background. There&amp;#x27;s only a few ways I can imagine to read into your statement. Either you think you&amp;#x27;re above citation, or so much smarter than the reader you&amp;#x27;re qualified to decide on their behalf whether it&amp;#x27;s relevant, or simply hiding it for nefarious reasons.&lt;p&gt;Any of these options, or even the perception of them, is precisely the type of behavior fostering anti intellectualism and prejudice for academia.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s also quite ironic you repeatedly mention &amp;quot;politics&amp;quot; while your entire argument seems to hinge on seeking to deny empowering further those already in power. Isn&amp;#x27;t that exercising political capital?</text></comment>
<story><title>Turing awardees republished key methods and ideas without credit</title><url>https://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/ai-priority-disputes.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>lacker</author><text>Whenever you cite papers just because you&amp;#x27;re &amp;quot;politically supposed to&amp;quot;, even though you don&amp;#x27;t think it&amp;#x27;s really intellectually useful for anyone to be aware of the cited paper, you&amp;#x27;re making the citations less useful for everybody.&lt;p&gt;Schmidhuber is only the worst of many abusers of the citation system. Everyone knows that anonymous reviewers are more likely to approve of people who cite their work. Someone is politically powerful? Better cite their paper, even though you don&amp;#x27;t really think it&amp;#x27;s a good paper and you didn&amp;#x27;t use it.&lt;p&gt;Schmidhuber is cited far more often than he should be, because people just don&amp;#x27;t want to deal with this crap, and the cost of sticking in one more citation is very low.</text></item><item><author>calf</author><text>But it is possible that he ought to have been cited as well? It doesn&amp;#x27;t matter if he&amp;#x27;s a hypocrite. The justification ultimately has to be, &amp;quot;Our paper did not use your work in any substantial way therefore a citation is not needed.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;I can see how citations can get very complex for the purposes of scientific credit, traditionally there&amp;#x27;s a self-policed aspect to it in every academic community; however, in this century as advanced research gets more complex and globalized, it might be time for a more rigorous and neutral process of doing so.</text></item><item><author>SeanLuke</author><text>We published a paper a while back in a genetic programming conference, and before the paper had been published (only the title was announced) Schmidhuber guessed that we had not cited his work.  He very publically put us through the wringer for not citing him as the inventor of the concept were were examining.  In fact we had &lt;i&gt;not&lt;/i&gt; cited him: but among our dozen or so previous examples, we had cited two &lt;i&gt;others&lt;/i&gt; which long predated his work and were the actual seminal papers.  He had failed to cite them himself.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>tnecniv</author><text>My godfather is an academic that does some arcane nonsense (I mean that in the nicest way possible) involving topology and number theory. He told me a story about how he and his coauthor had a paper in review for 3 years because the reviewer insisted on adding citations to what they assumed were his own work because they were not particularly relevant. My godfather after a round or two didn’t have the patience for it and said whatever let’s just put them in by his coauthor refused hence the three years of back and forth.</text></comment>