Original paper, which appeared in Diabetes Care. https://math.berkeley.edu/~ehallman/math1B/TaisMethod.pdf https://math.berkeley.edu/~ehallman/math1B/TaisMetho

Original paper, which appeared in Diabetes Care. https://math.berkeley.edu/~ehallman/math1B/TaisMethod.pdf https://math.berkeley.edu/~ehallman/math1B/TaisMethod.pdf Reading it, it's quite hard to believe it wasn't a joke, but it doesn't seem to be. It thanks R. Kuc of Yale (a professor of electrical engineering) for his expert review. Google Scholar says it has 336 citations, most of which appear to be non-ironic[0]. The original paper was immediately followed (i.e. in the same issue) by two corrective articles[1], one titled "Tai's Formula Is the Trapezoidal Rule". So why did they publish it at all? This page discusses that question: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/9602/rediscovery-of-calculus-in-1994-what-should-have-happened-to-that-paper https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/9602/rediscover... ..and links to this, which talks about how wheels are reinvented all the time. https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/7360/how-common-is-it-to-inadvertently-reinvent-the-wheel-in-academia https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/7360/how-common... [0] http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=18129095207210817294&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=18129095207210817294... [1] http://libgen.io/scimag/ads.php?doi=10.2337%2Fdiacare.17.10.1233b http://libgen.io/scimag/ads.php?doi=10.2337%2Fdiacare.17.10....