4 ms·
>The point is that someone who does indeed understand how ASL works can read the paper, find out what is missing and build on it. I just disagree. I have some
by softbuilder 17y ago
>The point is that someone who does indeed understand how ASL works can read the paper, find out what is missing and build on it.
I just disagree. I have some familiarity with ASL and I feel they've gone off in the wrong direction from the start. I suppose you could say that a future study could build on this one by completely debunking it. Perhaps that argument has some merit.
>Your criticism is too hard
Probably. But I got the feeling from the paper itself that this is someone's last-minute rush to finish a thesis or fulfill a grant obligation or something. I guess I'd like to see a little passion in my science. Sorry if that seems too harsh.
- TriinT 17y ago"I just disagree. I have some familiarity with ASL and I feel they've gone off in the wrong direction from the start." I know a bit of information theory, but I know zero of ASL. It's quite possible that they went in the wrong direction from the start, but someone can still write a paper to point that out and prevent other people from repeating the same mistake. There's value in going in the wrong direction: it serves as a warning to others. "I guess I'd like to see a little passion in my science. Sorry if that seems too harsh." Personally, I found the paper's presentation horrible. I would never submit something so visually unappealing under my name. I agree that it sounds like a last-minute rush to finish something. I also agree that there seems to be little passion in it. However, let us look at the authors: 1st author in an EE undergrad, 2nd author is a post-doc, 3rd author is a professor. Of course, the undergrad did all the work, the post-doc guided him, and the professor secured the grants that paid for the effort. Despite all the paper's flaws, I still think it must be judged for what it is: an EE undergrad trying his luck outside his field... and failing, perhaps.