5 ms·
I think it's important to note why the 75 citations isn't just 75 dummies who also haven't heard of integration. If you're writing a diabetes paper and want to
by stuartbman 6y ago
I think it's important to note why the 75 citations isn't just 75 dummies who also haven't heard of integration.
If you're writing a diabetes paper and want to use integration for your analysis (even if you are fully aware of its background), you'll be forced to justify your approach and defend it's applicability to diabetes. Far easier to say 'as per Tai et al...' and take it as given.
You see this a lot- 'we used [x] because Big Name Prof did as well [citation]'
- Robotbeat 6y agoSounds like it’s the reviewers who need to know basic calculus.
- OskarS 6y ago'as per Newton, Leibniz et al...' isn't good enough? Seriously though: if it is indeed true that you need to justify it this way, that is insane: this is just basic calculus. Do you have to justify every single statistics calculation also? Do you have to say 'as per Whoever et al' every time you calculate the standard deviation of something? What referee would object to 'estimating the area using the trapezoidal rules gives us...'? (note that this paper was purely about the CALCULATION of the area, not justifying whether or not the area is a useful thing to know)
- ghostwriter 6y agoIt indicates a broken system with bad incentives. Integration is integration regardless the domain of application.
- pfortuny 6y agoWell, tell that to World of Science, or Scopus, or the h-index.
- thu2111 6y agoSo it's not 75 dummies, it's 75 people who have to please dummies who can't be just sent a wikipedia link for calculus? That's even worse!