3 ms·

Longer papers with more claims have more to prove, not less. I imagine they would be harder to pass peer review.

• tredre3 2y ago
  > Longer papers with more claims have more to prove, not less. I imagine they would be harder to pass peer review. Yes, a longer paper puts more work on the peer reviewers (handful of people). But splitting one project in multiple papers puts more work on the reader (thousands of people). There is a balance to strike.
• atrettel 2y ago
  I agree with your first part but not your second. Most authors do not make outrageous claims, and I surely would reject their manuscript if they did. I've done it before and will do it again without any issue. To me, the point of peer review is to both evaluate the science/correctness of the work, but also to ensure that this is something novel that is worth telling others about. Does the manuscript introduce something novel into the literature? That is my standard (and the standard that I was taught). I typically look for at least one of three things: new theory, new data/experiments, or an extensive review and summation of existing work. The more results the manuscript has, the more likely it is to meet this novelty requirement.
  • nextn 2y ago
    The more results a manuscript must have, the more work it is to develop the manuscript. Peer review misses 100% of long papers that don't get submitted, where multiple non-outrageous claims were too much work to develop.