3 ms·
For 1, I read that as thinking you could get a second paper out of running the same code on another dataset, and not wanting to be scooped on the second paper.
by cwyers 11y ago
For 1, I read that as thinking you could get a second paper out of running the same code on another dataset, and not wanting to be scooped on the second paper.
- IanCal 11y agoI understand the thinking but this should sound as non-sensical as > We didn't release our first, second or third papers because we didn't want to be scooped on the fourth and if we publish then someone might build on our work!
- dagw 11y agoWe didn't release our first, second or third papers because we didn't want to be scooped on the fourth and if we publish then someone might build on our work! Which happens all the time. If you are working on something big you'll sometimes hold back on publishing parts of your research until you've completed the big thing for just that reason. Then once you've completed the big thing you publish all four papers either together or in quick succession.
- aiNohY6g 11y agoJust running the same code on another dataset is not research, it's production. Without minimal extra scientific efforts, such a work, while valuable, certainly does not deserve a scientific article in a peer review journal.