4 ms·
No, that's standard boilerplate these days in papers. You have to "sell" the science a bit to reviewers and connect your work to the broader picture. Those in t
by mikexstudios 11y ago
No, that's standard boilerplate these days in papers. You have to "sell" the science a bit to reviewers and connect your work to the broader picture. Those in the field usually ignore statements like this.
- fluxquanta 11y agoWhen I was a research assistant in college I was encouraged for one of my presentations to emphasize safe hydrogen storage as a vehicle fuel source, when really the research was all about how minuscule amounts of hydrogen change the electrical/optical properties of thin metallic films (and desorption was on the order of days). Selling it as a building block for safer hydrogen storage was necessary to get people engaged.
- refurb 11y agoYup! I published a paper on organoselenium chemistry and was asked to add commentary about potential "anti-cancer" properties. Sure my work could be extended in that direction, but I had done zero work to pursue it.
- giarc 11y agoEven in Nature?
- mikexstudios 11y agoThis paper is in Scientific Reports, which is published by Nature but is not regarded as a top-tier journal. It has an impact factor of 5.5 vs. 41 of Nature. But I would say that "selling the science" occurs more often for high-profile journals because the authors need to convince the reviewers that the paper has a significant impact. Papers in more field-specific journals tend to write conservatively.
- giarc 11y agoOh you're right, I didn't notice that. Thanks for pointing that out.