5 ms·

That's the process of understanding no?

• pas 4y ago
  the problem is that journals have this fancy dream that they are still the communication medium between peers of the field, who are equals and up to speed, and they are simply exchanging notes on their eminent thoughts and theories. yes, that probably also happens every once in a while, but they should adopt a rule to assume that readers are absolutely not the seminal trailblazers of the field. [of course no need to go back to Simple English Wikipedia level] there's ample space in journals. no need to hide stuff in spreadsheets in the supplements. paper authors should write the fucking thing down with precision and accuracy. yes, of course cite things, but also they should finish their thoughts, spare the reader the endless goose chase. no need for the standards smug remarks that communicate absolutely nothing just namedrops citations. understanding should not be an adversarial process. (Socratic, yes, but that's cooperative/constructive.)