3 ms·

At the same time, reviewers are chosen based on their expertise in a field, and one of the things reviewers look for is that new papers cite relevant prior rese

At the same time, reviewers are chosen based on their expertise in a field, and one of the things reviewers look for is that new papers cite relevant prior research. Are you suggesting that reviewers should just let papers go through without citing relevant prior research if it is their own research? Does it actually matter whose research it is as long as it is relevant prior research?

Retric 4y ago
Of course it matters, adding citations to already written research is deceptive and thus actively harmful. The point of citations isn’t simply an index of prior research it’s there to inform readers of the writers context.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  When a paper is rejected because it doesn't contain references to relevant prior research, the citations shouldn't simply be added; the relevant prior research that wasn't considered should thus be considered, and the paper should be reworked with that new context in mind. Research should be put into the proper context in the field, not based on what the writer personally looked at. If a researcher's context is myopic enough not to include relevant prior work known or done by reviewers, then the research itself is of questionable value. If someone submits work that purports to be novel, yet they haven't done a proper literature review to include relevant studies, I'd say that is itself deceptive and more actively harmful to the field as a whole.
  - Retric 4y ago
    Suppose an experiment takes 5 years, nothing written after the experiment begin should have any barring on what was done and the resulting data. The same is true to a lesser extent for any research. Now if the field has discovered some flaw in what was done then things go well beyond the simple need for a citation.
    - ModernMech 4y ago
      That's not how competent research is done. You don't go into a hole for 5 years and then come back into the world with a fully-formed paper. While you're doing that research, the world moves on, and if your citations are from 5 years ago, any publication will ask the extremely appropriate question "How does this matter w.r.t. the research published since you started this work?", and send the paper back for rewrite. Or, it may ask the even more appropriate question "Why does your research matter given the results of papers x,y,z which are directly related to your research question?" Any competent researcher should preempt in their literature review, and if they can't then it's not research but instead PR. And this doesn't even touch upon the fact that research that's going to take 5 years is going to be well-funded, and you'll have to write interim reports over that period. When you get 5 years of funding, you don't get that all at once. During that time, you'll have to answer for advances in the field and justify why the research is still worth doing.
      - Retric 4y ago
        Experiments that take a long time aren’t always expensive, sometimes you just need time. What actually happens to a sample held at X condition for some period of time? As to other field moving on, it can be a reason to reject the paper in it’s entirety but has zero impact on the results which is the only thing that actually matters. Papers aren’t textbooks, the goal is to communicate what was done and what happened not inform the reader of some wider context. In the end if I am reading 30 papers on some topic I really want them to be as short and clear as possible. And for topics I keep up with I sure don’t need this fluff.
        ModernMech 4y ago
        > Papers aren’t textbooks, the goal is to communicate what was done and what happened not inform the reader of some wider context. And a literature review is part of what was done, always. If what you said were true, there would be no point in a literature review at all. Instead, every paper includes one because researchers understand it's an intrinsic part of research. That's what makes it research instead of just search: research is a systematic process that involves, in every definition of the process I've ever come across, a literature review. I challenge you to find an example of peer reviewed research that doesn't contain one.

Retric 4y ago

Of course it matters, adding citations to already written research is deceptive and thus actively harmful. The point of citations isn’t simply an index of prior research it’s there to inform readers of the writers context.

ModernMech 4y ago
When a paper is rejected because it doesn't contain references to relevant prior research, the citations shouldn't simply be added; the relevant prior research that wasn't considered should thus be considered, and the paper should be reworked with that new context in mind. Research should be put into the proper context in the field, not based on what the writer personally looked at. If a researcher's context is myopic enough not to include relevant prior work known or done by reviewers, then the research itself is of questionable value. If someone submits work that purports to be novel, yet they haven't done a proper literature review to include relevant studies, I'd say that is itself deceptive and more actively harmful to the field as a whole.
- Retric 4y ago
  Suppose an experiment takes 5 years, nothing written after the experiment begin should have any barring on what was done and the resulting data. The same is true to a lesser extent for any research. Now if the field has discovered some flaw in what was done then things go well beyond the simple need for a citation.
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    That's not how competent research is done. You don't go into a hole for 5 years and then come back into the world with a fully-formed paper. While you're doing that research, the world moves on, and if your citations are from 5 years ago, any publication will ask the extremely appropriate question "How does this matter w.r.t. the research published since you started this work?", and send the paper back for rewrite. Or, it may ask the even more appropriate question "Why does your research matter given the results of papers x,y,z which are directly related to your research question?" Any competent researcher should preempt in their literature review, and if they can't then it's not research but instead PR. And this doesn't even touch upon the fact that research that's going to take 5 years is going to be well-funded, and you'll have to write interim reports over that period. When you get 5 years of funding, you don't get that all at once. During that time, you'll have to answer for advances in the field and justify why the research is still worth doing.
    - Retric 4y ago
      Experiments that take a long time aren’t always expensive, sometimes you just need time. What actually happens to a sample held at X condition for some period of time? As to other field moving on, it can be a reason to reject the paper in it’s entirety but has zero impact on the results which is the only thing that actually matters. Papers aren’t textbooks, the goal is to communicate what was done and what happened not inform the reader of some wider context. In the end if I am reading 30 papers on some topic I really want them to be as short and clear as possible. And for topics I keep up with I sure don’t need this fluff.
      - ModernMech 4y ago
        > Papers aren’t textbooks, the goal is to communicate what was done and what happened not inform the reader of some wider context. And a literature review is part of what was done, always. If what you said were true, there would be no point in a literature review at all. Instead, every paper includes one because researchers understand it's an intrinsic part of research. That's what makes it research instead of just search: research is a systematic process that involves, in every definition of the process I've ever come across, a literature review. I challenge you to find an example of peer reviewed research that doesn't contain one.