3 ms·

It's worth mentioning that some of those standards may not be producing the best outcomes (see https://lemire.me/blog/2017/08/15/on-melissa-oneills-pcg-random-n

by deong 9y ago

It's worth mentioning that some of those standards may not be producing the best outcomes (see https://lemire.me/blog/2017/08/15/on-melissa-oneills-pcg-random-number-generator/ https://lemire.me/blog/2017/08/15/on-melissa-oneills-pcg-ran..., for example). In my own experience, I once wrote a paper in a much more casual and approachable style. I had what I felt was the same scientific rigor around the experiments and data, but tried to make the text more generally readable. I had Simpson's references sprinkled here and there, that sort of thing. The response was generally negative. The paper was accepted for the mid-tier conference I submitted it to, but on the condition that I revise to take care of reviewer concerns, many of which boiled down to "you should write with a more appropriate tone". No one complained that the paper was imprecise as a result. They just didn't like that it didn't read in the standard passive and bland academic voice. I found that somewhat depressing.

chrisseaton 9y ago
> I had Simpson's references sprinkled here and there, that sort of thing. I should offer to read your paper before criticising it, but I can't even begin to understand why you would think that references to a TV programme would help make a paper more readable. What if you don't happen to watch the Simpsons? Is the paper then even more opaque because none of the references mean anything? I quite like the bland academic voice - because it lets me focus on what I came for which is the science. I don't want to be amused, and I don't want academics wasting time trying to be witty or fit in references to whatever TV programme is fashionable. I want just the science, please! Delivered as clearly and simply as possible.
- deong 9y ago
  There are parts of the standard academic paper that aren't really necessary for understanding it. You typically have background on the problem, for example. I can't say for certain I didn't lose a reader, but none of the references detracted from meaning in my view.
avs733 9y ago
I totally TOTALLY agree. I was trying to stay away from offering value judgement and be a little more descriptive. it is not necessarily effective, but, it is. I have done similar things, with similar reactions. I think such approaches in fact negatively impact science...especially through the public's engagement with it. Perhaps my 'favorite' was trying to do a conference session about active learning using...active learning. Got told that it was unprofessional and that those listening were 'peers not students'. There was a really wonderful paper on academia I read not long ago[1] that basically made the argument that a darwinian biology framework basically explained all this. It basically asked the question what is a defense that arose to solve a problem, and has now transformed into what looks like a defect...and how do we separate those (or should we) from actual defects. Today I stumbled across a similar article which discussed [1] Lohmann, S. (2004). Darwinian medicine for the university. Governing Academia: Who Is in Charge at the Modern University, 71-90. [2] ...and of course I can't re-find it. I'll update if I do.

by deong 9y ago

chrisseaton 9y ago

> I had Simpson's references sprinkled here and there, that sort of thing. I should offer to read your paper before criticising it, but I can't even begin to understand why you would think that references to a TV programme would help make a paper more readable. What if you don't happen to watch the Simpsons? Is the paper then even more opaque because none of the references mean anything? I quite like the bland academic voice - because it lets me focus on what I came for which is the science. I don't want to be amused, and I don't want academics wasting time trying to be witty or fit in references to whatever TV programme is fashionable. I want just the science, please! Delivered as clearly and simply as possible.

deong 9y ago
There are parts of the standard academic paper that aren't really necessary for understanding it. You typically have background on the problem, for example. I can't say for certain I didn't lose a reader, but none of the references detracted from meaning in my view.

avs733 9y ago

I totally TOTALLY agree. I was trying to stay away from offering value judgement and be a little more descriptive. it is not necessarily effective, but, it is. I have done similar things, with similar reactions. I think such approaches in fact negatively impact science...especially through the public's engagement with it. Perhaps my 'favorite' was trying to do a conference session about active learning using...active learning. Got told that it was unprofessional and that those listening were 'peers not students'. There was a really wonderful paper on academia I read not long ago[1] that basically made the argument that a darwinian biology framework basically explained all this. It basically asked the question what is a defense that arose to solve a problem, and has now transformed into what looks like a defect...and how do we separate those (or should we) from actual defects. Today I stumbled across a similar article which discussed [1] Lohmann, S. (2004). Darwinian medicine for the university. Governing Academia: Who Is in Charge at the Modern University, 71-90. [2] ...and of course I can't re-find it. I'll update if I do.