I generally agree with everything, but thought I would just use this as a springboard into a related topic: > What’s the difference between a “bug” and “defect

I generally agree with everything, but thought I would just use this as a springboard into a related topic: > What’s the difference between a “bug” and “defect”? Well, one’s a bug and the other’s a defect, duh! This kind of issue is common but I'm not sure how to avoid it. Any group of people > 1 will start to use their own lingo, which often is made up of similar words from "outside" but have different connotations. This is true in science, medicine, software engineering, law, everywhere. (I mean, why would I search for "bug"? Like, I'm searching for problems with computer code, not insects!) This phenomenon unfortunately leads to misunderstandings with the general public, which leads to mistrust. Part of it is on scientists (and lawyers...) to be clearer in their communication, but I think it is also on the public to recognize that when reading scientific literature they are not the intended audience and are therefore missing a ton of context that is not explicitly stated. Also: >I’m sure this is slightly easier if you’re deeply embedded in academia Also depends on the field. Chemistry has SciFinder, which although very expensive for institutions, is very good. It is fairly specific to chemistry though (and some overlapping fields). His process for finding node papers and grinding through citations is pretty much how most scientists do it, though. And conferences.