I would agree that "no paper is that good" -- on the first try or even the second try. Just as we need constantly refactor code, just as we need constantly re-e

I would agree that "no paper is that good" -- on the first try or even the second try. Just as we need constantly refactor code, just as we need constantly re-edit a book, a paper that explains a scientific idea also needs constant re-write to become good. The sad reality is that scholars simply do not do that. It is understandable though. Once the paper is published, then it is no-longer novel, and there is obviously lack of reward and motivation to write the same idea again -- just to write it better. ... unless you are actually writing a review paper, but then, it appears there is little value unless the review is "complete". A good illustration of the idea need be able to high-light the key idea while avoid having minor ideas obscure the key. Therefore, a "complete" review paper rarely provide a good read. Compared to papers, a good text-book often is a much better read than all the original papers. It is not really because of the size, rather it is because a good text-book is written from the reader's point of view and focuses on conveying the idea itself (vs. selling the idea). And a good text-book takes many rounds to develop. There is no reason papers cannot be developed in a similar way as text books: once a ground-breaking paper is published, it shall be constantly updated, each new edition reflects what the author has newly learned and incorporating new development including the entire community... Alas, that is not the culture, and there is no motivation to do such.