2. we are the "first" to introduce/solve the problem
3. we develop "sophisticated techniques/algorithm" to solve the problem
4. we make the following "contributions" (long list of trivialities..)
- ..
- ..
- ..
i guess what is irritating is that all of these are for the reader to assess and judge; not for the writer to claim/assume. sadly, with the realities of the the reviewing process and often the short-attention span of reviewers, the only work that sees that light of day are those that explicitly spoonfeed the reviewer with such keywords.
(im certain i have been/will be guilty of these at some point)
2 comments:
Gotta be done. It's not *really* that offensive, is it? My view is that every person who reads a paper is insanely busy, and that as an author, I owe it to them to make it as easy to pick apart the pieces of my work that they'll find of value...
in theory, yes, i agree. but in practice, too often this seems to be easily exploitable, and that appears to
occurring with nontrivial frequency :-(. maybe these specific words have gotten "evil" connotations in my mind and maybe my not-so-completely-rational-mind will accept alternative words that convey the same intent -- why is your idea cool/different/insightful/interesting etc.
on a specific note -- "first" cannot possibly be established without reasonable doubt -- cant possibly imagine one can establish that with any amount of certainty; i have no issues with cool ideas being rehashes of earlier work applied in new contexts and that by no means should be grounds for rejection. but novelty at the potential expense of "integrity" seems a questionable tradeoff.
Post a Comment