4 ms·
1. Other than your time, why not preprint it? 2. As an aside, I can't tell you how many times I've tried to work on stuff, it ends up working, and then I find
by skosuri 6y ago
1. Other than your time, why not preprint it?
2. As an aside, I can't tell you how many times I've tried to work on stuff, it ends up working, and then I find papers and people saying what we did would never work. Sometimes the ignorance is good.
- bnegreve 6y ago> then I find papers and people saying what we did would never work. Seriously? What kind of scientific paper makes such claims?
- skosuri 6y agoTo be fair, it's mostly people that do this because negative results publishing is rare. There have definitely been papers saying this though; plenty of shade thrown at basically every new method in its infancy with papers saying why they won't work (you can find plenty of academic papers dunking on human genome project and shotgun sequencing; next-gen sequencing; talens/crispr's, gene therapy, immunotherapy, ai, etc).
- dguest 6y agoWhat field is this? In the physics papers I've worked on we generally try to state all the assumptions we made when we rule something out, but we do sometimes miss things, and I suppose that in some fields the preparation might me messier.