The greed...
Dec. 3rd, 2008 07:29 pmI spent all afternoon reading a very interesting paper. The paper was well-organized, the experiments clear, the data thought-provoking. To boot, the writing itself was clear and logical. I was actually quite pleased.
I nearly killed "Good Paper Buzz" by picking up the very antithesis! This second paper was not at all organized, the experiments inconclusive (not to mention irreproducible, even by the writers of the paper!), and while thought-provoking, certainly not thoughts of a good kind. It made me really wonder why the hell a prestigious scientific journal would ever accept such a communication.
A key lesson in this is that, like books, not all scientific papers are created equal. And like when you're reading books, maybe, after you read a really good paper, you should sit and be happy and bask in the post-reading high before embarking on the next paper, expecting it to be just as good ;)
Another observation that always surprises me: scientists can be terrible writers, but they can have prolific publication records. I know that *can* be true of general writing, but seriously? I'd argue the body of published poorly written scientific work is muuuuch larger than the body of published poorly written literature at large.
Whining over.
Things to be happier about:
I nearly killed "Good Paper Buzz" by picking up the very antithesis! This second paper was not at all organized, the experiments inconclusive (not to mention irreproducible, even by the writers of the paper!), and while thought-provoking, certainly not thoughts of a good kind. It made me really wonder why the hell a prestigious scientific journal would ever accept such a communication.
A key lesson in this is that, like books, not all scientific papers are created equal. And like when you're reading books, maybe, after you read a really good paper, you should sit and be happy and bask in the post-reading high before embarking on the next paper, expecting it to be just as good ;)
Another observation that always surprises me: scientists can be terrible writers, but they can have prolific publication records. I know that *can* be true of general writing, but seriously? I'd argue the body of published poorly written scientific work is muuuuch larger than the body of published poorly written literature at large.
Whining over.
Things to be happier about:
- Andrea Lee's Interesting Women
- Wine tasting tomorrow night!
- White Chocolate Mochas!
- Minipreps! (Don't they sound like the cutest experiments ever?!)
- They serve cookies and coffee at every seminar here!
- Dr. J!
- Wearing hats and scarves again! I have so many!