In my field it’s often general journal policy, not an individual choice. It’s hit or miss, as it can be easy to guess who the reviewer or author is in a niche field. I personally don’t go out of my way to figure out the author’s affiliation, even if it can be trivial. Regarding self citations, those are usually obfuscated at the review stage. I’d say that a paper is easy to narrow down to a circle of scholars, but it might be the first paper of a research associate, a throwaway paper by a PI, or a paper that aims to engage those narrow specialists. So is a kind of smoke screen.

I actually robot-fed my kitten from day one, so they basically don’t associate me with food at all, just with cuddles and reprimands.

Thank God for double blind peer reviews, warts and all.

Tatakae!

Reminds me of a scene from Don’t Look Up

I see no indicators that this was AI. Lots of details, no inconsistency.

https://youtu.be/YRCmmJZRyJs?si=SyUW8QyahSJ0NsKj

Salt water

There’s a Key and Peele sketch about this

I can say with confidence that at least some call it homocide map, with the evidence you’ve provided. 🧐

Reminds me of this work by Latour. It goes into the tremendous amount of oftentimes political labor that goes into the establishment of new scientific knowledge as paradigmatic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pasteurization_of_France

Classic first peak mindset right here.

Doctor Who!

Also one of the dumbest names ever.

This assumes that the aorta cannot be deformed by the school bus. Cooked penne can be destroyed by a six sided die.

Conversely, social scientists tend to compete on how to underdress the most.

Shota

And cats. They were a menace.

Huh? Wikipedia isn’t banned in Russia yet. Though I do expect them to take steps towards it.

Always makes me think of this song.