3 ms·
> and mostly only cover fundamentals I consider that a feature when entering a new field. Once I have the fundamentals, it's much easier to read a paper and ha
by pgeorgi 7y ago
> and mostly only cover fundamentals
I consider that a feature when entering a new field. Once I have the fundamentals, it's much easier to read a paper and have at least a rough idea if it's a crackpot theory or the real deal. Without the fundamentals? No clue.
- cgiles 7y agoThe easy way around this is to find out what journal the article was published in and look at its impact factor. If the impact factor is below 2, ignore it. If it is between 3 and 10, it is probably legit although it may not be the majority viewpoint in the field. If it is above 10, then either the article is written by a very important person in the field, or it is considered to be potentially high-impact but may be wrong. Alternatively very massive consortium experiments are published in high-impact journals as a matter of course. It is best to stick to the 3 to 10 range though until you know the ins and outs. Lots of Nature papers look exciting and turn out to be wrong. This is a rough guideline that varies by field. PLoS One is a journal that publishes anything but has a decent impact factor so it is an exception to this rule. There are a few others but it generally holds true.