@xtaran personally, I would have pushed back to the handling editor and told them these citations weren't going to happen, but this is a fun riposte which (a) probably makes it clear who the reviewers are and (b) hopefully encourages them never to pull this shit again.
Recently for a review paper, one #referee suggested about 25 citations, with 22 having one (very prominent) author in common and the 2 others by former group members of this prominent author.
Even more friendly, in the review they were all mentioned by #PubMed Id only.
For the 25th one, there was probably a typo in the ID, as it was a 1970s paper even more utterly unrelated.
One of the 22 was a popular science review paper on film-making in the field of #biophysics.
![Excerpt from the linked paper:
As strongly requested by the reviewers, here we cite some references [[35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]] although they are completely irrelevant to the present work.](https://friendica.hellquist.eu/photo/preview/640/3358998 "Excerpt from the linked paper:
As strongly requested by the reviewers, here we cite some references [[35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]] although they are completely irrelevant to the present work.")
Axel ⌨🐧🐪🚴😷 | R.I.P Natenom
in reply to Dave nλ=2dsinθ :protein: • • •Dave nλ=2dsinθ :protein:
in reply to Axel ⌨🐧🐪🚴😷 | R.I.P Natenom • • •Jocelyn Etienne
in reply to Dave nλ=2dsinθ :protein: • • •@xtaran
Recently for a review paper, one #referee suggested about 25 citations, with 22 having one (very prominent) author in common and the 2 others by former group members of this prominent author.
Even more friendly, in the review they were all mentioned by #PubMed Id only.
For the 25th one, there was probably a typo in the ID, as it was a 1970s paper even more utterly unrelated.
One of the 22 was a popular science review paper on film-making in the field of #biophysics.
1/2