4 ms·
> I originally thought this paper presented evidence for extra dimensions discovered in gravitational wave readings. And you've perfectly illustrated the curre
by TheRealDunkirk 9y ago
> I originally thought this paper presented evidence for extra dimensions discovered in gravitational wave readings.
And you've perfectly illustrated the current problem with science reporting. It's hard to keep people interested in ongoing discovery when 1) the link doesn't accurately represent the paper's thesis, and 2) the paper is so obtuse as to require a specialized degree to understand.
Whatever your qualifications, your comment provided the context to understand what was being asserted. You are the sort of person who should be writing articles on scientific papers.
- gus_massa 9y ago> And you've perfectly illustrated the current problem with science reporting. In this cases, this is the proposed title to the research article in the peer review journal. (Is this accepted yet?) So this is not a problem of a bad clickbait journalism. My guess is that it's a good title for the people in the area, because they have enough context of the current research state to guess that it's a theoretical result and not an experimental result (and in case of doubt they can RTFA). So I suspect it's not malice (neither stupidity).
- nolemurs 9y agoIronically, in this case, the Hacker News link could really have benefited from a title change to communicate the missing context.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- Steuard 9y agoThis isn't a "science reporting" site: arXiv.org is providing the actual scientific article. The paper is supposed to require a specialized degree to understand: that's the intended audience of the vast majority of content on arXiv.org. (And for regular users of the site, it's immediately clear that no paper categorized as "hep-th: High Energy Physics - Theory" would be announcing actual observational results.) Aside: The authors of this article seem to have submitted a revised version a couple of weeks ago; sometimes (but not always) that coincides with either journal submission or responding to reviewer comments. There's no indication here yet of what its current stage in the peer review process is. Edit: I see from later comments here that the target of this link may have been changed to arXiv.org after its original submission. If the earlier link was paywalled as someone said, that suggests that this result has been formally published somewhere. (I'm a little surprised that the authors didn't note that on the arXiv page once it happened.) So maybe the earlier context made the purely theoretical nature of the paper less clear.
- homarp 9y agoJournal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2017/06/048 https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2017/06/048 Received 8 May 2017 Accepted 13 June 2017 Published 23 June 2017
- pvitz 9y agoI am astonished how quickly it was reviewed and published. Is this common for journals on cosmology? It has been some years but I remember that submissions to e.g. Phys.Rev.E could take a long time till they would be published.
- the8472 9y ago> the paper is so obtuse as to require a specialized degree to understand. I have no degree in physics and I find the authors make a decent job giving several summaries (abstract, introduction, description of the work) that make clear that they propose hypotheticals that could be observed, not actual observerations. > We discuss whether these two effects could be observed.
- coldtea 9y ago>And you've perfectly illustrated the current problem with science reporting. What "reporting"? This is a science paper -- and its actual title.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]