GPT-3: Devil's Dictionary of Modern Science

*Rebuttal* [noun] A form of ironic composition in 500 words popular among researchers, in which rageful authors first thank their reviewers for "their time and insightful  comments" and then mock Reviewer 2 for his non-sense in a sarcastic sequence of fakely polite points.

"We thank reviewers 1, 2, and 3, for their time and insightful comments, which we have spent many hours reading over. But in reply we note:

1.| We did not describe any 'simple algorithm' for the repeated-measures ANOVA in the abstract, the discussion, or in the Methods. Such a description of our protocol would be incoherent and probably invalid anyway.

2. We know of no 'more appropriate analysis' for the mean and variance of the proportions than to compute the estimates of the variances directly. Since we have done this correctly, it makes no sense to proceed further as suggested by Reviewer 2.

3. It does not make sense to carry out the tests for homogeneity that Reviewer 2 suggest we do. Indeed, we never said we should carry out such tests. Our precise point was that we should not compute the standard errors of the treatment means, and Reviewer 2 seems to think that we have argued for the opposite point, which we have not.

4. Again, Reviewer 2 apparently did not read the Methods section carefully and was confused by some sections that he or she did read. A better review would have pointed this out.

5. We note the Reviewer 2's overly generous suggestion that we write a 'special' rebuttal. At the very least, we assume that Reviewer 2 knows what a rebuttal is, and we would therefore argue for a critical comment instead."

Noise

Noise is anything you don't want or need, a random or distracting factor in a system, process, or set of data that obscures or corrupts information. It is also the sound produced by old time radios when no transmission is present, which is roughly what some fields of science would have to resemble if some researchers had their way.

"New research"

A form of scientific publishing that includes, among others, a report on previously performed studies; a report of a new statistical test or set of statistical tests that were performed by the author of the "study" without the help of other scientists; a report of a small set of samples, not necessarily from a population or process, which could, but have not been collected in a systematic way and may not even be accurately described, in the guise of which conclusions are drawn about the world; and a report of the result of performing an unvalidated computer simulation of something on a small set of data without stating whether such an attempt was successful or not.

"Nice to see"

A widely and unofficially accepted phrase in scientific circles meaning: "It is better to live in an imaginary world created by data manipulation and overly optimistic predictions than in the world that exists in reality".

"Researcher"

[noun] A form of modern industry based on a mix of small molecules of grant money and arbitrary experimental methods.

"Review"

A form of scientific communication in which the writer (a student) usually does not give enough information for the reader to judge the merit of the arguments presented in the paper; the writer also does not respond to or comment on the suggestions of the reviewers (sometimes known as referee or editor). This form of communication is popular among students who wish to leave the burden of writing the paper on other people and are willing to pay the price of rejection.

"Second chance"

A word that scientists regularly use when referencing a journal, conference, or grant application. While there is always an implicit threat that you can get rejected, or be accepted with changes, as a second choice to another party, some articles, papers, grants, and grant proposals receive multiple, even unlimited, chances of being considered. As a result, the word may be interpreted as a bribe or a threat depending on whether you are the writer or a reviewer.

"Reviewer"

A participant in the review of a grant, paper, or grant proposal. In spite of being in a poor position to assess the merits of a proposal, reviewer tends to demand that authors submit their data for statistical analysis and back their results with it, which the reviewer usually does not. Reviewer usually requires that the author cite his or her own work to prove that he or she is worth reviewing. It is also assumed that the reviewer can detect the slightest amount of bias in any paper, which the reviewer also assumes has not been corrected for.

"Revise and resubmit"

A sentence that authors of submitted papers tend to hear from reviewers, editors, and the like. A form of scientific communication that begins with submission of a paper (for which the reviewers may or may not have been consulted), proceeds through review and criticism of the paper (typically by one or two reviewers, not a full panel of reviewers, unless the paper is deemed to be of supreme importance), and, if it is "revised and resubmitted", usually ends with another critique of the new paper by one or more of the reviewers, and another round of "revise and resubmit", ad infinitum. In the absence of fraud, retractions, litigation, mass incompetence, or insanity, these "revise and resubmit" cycles may be taken as the only method of scientific communication.

"Retracted"

The most frequently used word for a journal article that was subsequently found to be based on fraudulent data.

"Rigor"

Something for scientists to aspire to, a state of mind that would not be required if scientists could be trusted to do their job.

"Science"

A complex web of data, opinions, lies, and errors, now considered the most important (because most expensive) technology in the modern society. To remind you of this, you will frequently see scientists and editors use the word, claim to do something for the sake of science, or see it used as an adjective.

"Standards"

Standards for data and their interpretation vary depending on the country or scientific discipline.

"Study"

[noun] A form of communication in the scientific literature that authors or publishers may use to make claims that are not warranted. Examples include, but are not limited to: The New study of clinical trials that show..., As Dr. X reports in his new study of observational data..., The new study demonstrates that..., Study shows that, In a study published last week..., The study suggests that, New findings show that, A study of data...

"Study X"

A widely used nickname for studies with profound, not to say earthshaking, conclusions that may or may not be of any relevance to anyone who reads about them.

"Technology"

Any bit of software, analysis, model, or other methodology that scientists can be expected to claim as their own, for which they can sell you consulting or collaboration fees.

"Tool"

[noun] Any piece of software, analysis, model, or other methodology that scientists can be expected to claim as their own, for which they can sell you consulting or collaboration fees.

"The topic of the paper"

A wide-ranging category of things or ideas that may not have been relevant when the