> the corpus of research papers and citation links is this knowledge database yes, I think so too. In the typical fashion of "pre-digital" information manageme

> the corpus of research papers and citation links is this knowledge database yes, I think so too. In the typical fashion of "pre-digital" information management systems it is extremely economical in the way it encodes things, with statements like "X is true as shown \cite{Y}" etc. But... > but it seems to be working quite well for the professionals in this field what prompted my comment is exactly the fact that didn't seem to work that well in this case :-) (nb: I am not remotely an archeology boffin, just triggered by the adversarial language of the paper). In more quantitative fields people talk about reproducible research, here its more a question of whether similar fields would benefit from "reproducible chains of reasoning".