mad libs, by roboppy
Want to get published in Science? Try using this template:
The concept of _____________ has occupied philosophers and scientists throughout recorded history because the ability to _________ is central to human ________ and ________. Behavioral studies have examined the problem of ________ and provided valuable insights that suggest it is __________ (1–3), can be enhanced by ___________ (4–7), and is correlated with _____________ (8–10). However, little is known about the neurobiological underpinnings of ___________ and how these neural mechanisms might differ between ___________ and __________.
Yes, that's right, a sure-fire formula to a better CV and Google Magic! Rank on Google's 1st Page in as little as 24 hours! Not only that, you can learn how to be SEO friendly: descriptive keywords with high search frequency this tool will tell u if ur website keywords r hot or not.
You can trust us. We Are Scientists.
haha this is absolutely hilarious.
ReplyDeleteYeesh! I was just having a conversation the other day about WAAAAAYYY overblown claims that seem to be cropping up in GlamorMag articles these days. Two departmental journal clubs in a row now we've seen papers from a Nature off-shoot journal that are total bullshit. Well, maybe not total bullshit. The experiments are OK, but the "conclusions" that the authors arrive at are not at all derived from the actual data. They grow a banana and claim that the entire world subsists on banana splits. The significance and novelty required for publication in these journals has trumped good science.
ReplyDeleteI can't decide whether it gives me hope of ever publishing in a GlamorMag, or makes me want to run away.
I guess that's why you're the Ambivalent Academic! The overblown conclusions are magnified by departmental press releases, then the media go wild.
ReplyDeleteScott - it was just too easy to resist... As a more difficult project, perhaps the Dada Engine can be adapted to generate random Science papers, much like the Postmodernism Generator.
[This is not to say, however, that I'm a scientific knowledge nihilist. Just a friendly critic.]