3 ms·

The inarticulate abstract was a red flag. I read 2/3 of the paper before giving up when finally, after untold quantity of adjectives, assertions, and halfway th

The inarticulate abstract was a red flag. I read 2/3 of the paper before giving up when finally, after untold quantity of adjectives, assertions, and halfway through, the supposed first couple of arguments made an appearance and were mostly indecipherable as such. The paper reads like what a high school junior thinks that a research review(?) is supposed to look like. Also, it is clear to me that the authors began with a conclusion around which they attempted to wrap support. The psych field needs low quality papers like Alaska needs snow.

mrkeen 3y ago
What was wrong with the abstract? * Widespread misconceptions: a) "Newer" brain structures were added on top of "older" brain structures. b) The "newer" brain structures provide more complex functions. * Psychologists have been publishing these in textbooks. * Neurobiologists have known these to be wrong for some time.
- mrangle 3y ago
  The core statement of the abstract is that the author's conclusions are the "clear an unanimous" views of "those studying nervous system evolution". This statement is incorrect on its face. Worse, it would be a bad scientific statement in any paper. Last, it is at once superfluous and incomplete even if it were true. Instead, a good abstract would briefly list the points of the author's preferred theory rather than waste the reader's time by only deferring to a loosely defined general authority in support of an assertion. Which is abstract writing 101, at least in fields for which writing standards are somewhat kept. Maybe that isn't the psychology field, but it should be. The last sentence of the abstract reads as if written by said high school junior. Science authors generally don't use the word "mistaken" to describe another theory, especially in the context of theories of brain evolution nor for anything else for which literally every theory can only be a theory. Including that preferred by the author. Good papers don't introduce their arguments / pov halfway through, or further. Good papers don't lean on deference to authority 1/2 paper before presenting what is supposed to be their evidence or theory. Good papers almost completely exclude adjectives when describing theories, conclusions, or data, let alone negative adjectives that are doing all of the work in making their yet-unsupported point.

mrkeen 3y ago

What was wrong with the abstract? * Widespread misconceptions: a) "Newer" brain structures were added on top of "older" brain structures. b) The "newer" brain structures provide more complex functions. * Psychologists have been publishing these in textbooks. * Neurobiologists have known these to be wrong for some time.

mrangle 3y ago
The core statement of the abstract is that the author's conclusions are the "clear an unanimous" views of "those studying nervous system evolution". This statement is incorrect on its face. Worse, it would be a bad scientific statement in any paper. Last, it is at once superfluous and incomplete even if it were true. Instead, a good abstract would briefly list the points of the author's preferred theory rather than waste the reader's time by only deferring to a loosely defined general authority in support of an assertion. Which is abstract writing 101, at least in fields for which writing standards are somewhat kept. Maybe that isn't the psychology field, but it should be. The last sentence of the abstract reads as if written by said high school junior. Science authors generally don't use the word "mistaken" to describe another theory, especially in the context of theories of brain evolution nor for anything else for which literally every theory can only be a theory. Including that preferred by the author. Good papers don't introduce their arguments / pov halfway through, or further. Good papers don't lean on deference to authority 1/2 paper before presenting what is supposed to be their evidence or theory. Good papers almost completely exclude adjectives when describing theories, conclusions, or data, let alone negative adjectives that are doing all of the work in making their yet-unsupported point.