4 ms·
>Now maybe they did spend some time learning it and looking into, but there is no way to know for sure Why are you so concerned on this ? Isn't the goal of a p
by matz1 5y ago
>Now maybe they did spend some time learning it and looking into, but there is no way to know for sure
Why are you so concerned on this ? Isn't the goal of a paper is to communicate information?
>It only proves that they have copy and paste.
Yes they copy paste but it doesn't prove that they don't really understand it.
They may very well found your definition is the best way to describe it.
As long as the reader of the paper understand what being communicated, imo it should be fine?
I can understand if its a school assignment where the goal is specifically to prove that the author know their stuff.
For a scientific paper, requiring a concept to be described in different way for the sake of it seem to be inefficient and wasting time.
- ganafagol 5y ago"We thank the anonymous reviewers for constructive feedback that we used to improve the article." Standard phrase, credit where credit is due, no need to make some definition worse just to not trip off a plagiarism filter. Unless this very phrase does the tripping off. Having to rephrase it would be pretty ridiculous though (and illustrates your point).
- davrosthedalek 5y agoNo, it's important to gauge how competent the researchers are, i.e. how trustworthy the remainder of the paper is. The problem with review process is that the reviewers typically cannot reproduce the work itself -- take a physics experiment for example. So they can only do a smell test, and getting basic concepts wrong is a rather bad smell.