3 ms·
Read it. Was not impressed. While the hypothesis is sound ( and likely to be true ), the paper itself is a microcosm of everything wrong with papers these days.
by iugtmkbdfil834 7mo ago
Read it. Was not impressed. While the hypothesis is sound ( and likely to be true ), the paper itself is a microcosm of everything wrong with papers these days. For example, referenced "Web Appendix Table W3", which promises seed prompts is missing..
- coldtea 7mo agoCouldn't care less for a missing table or figure, or even for the whole paper. The theory is interesting in itself.
- iugtmkbdfil834 7mo agoYou do not care about foundational aspect of the paper? Bold. The theory may be interesting AND wrong based just on their initial seeds. Are you ok with that?
- coldtea 7mo agoYes. I don't believe such theories are proven or disproven based on "data" and figures.
- iugtmkbdfil834 7mo agoInteresting. How are they proven or disproven if 'data' and figures are not appropriate?
- euroderf 7mo agoThis is teh interwebz. Graphics and footnote4s and attachments get garbled and lost. sigh
- iugtmkbdfil834 7mo agoListen, I am not some anal, super-obsessive crazie, who gets his jollies out of finding minor discrepancies ( though it is fun in the middle of the argument ). The article was interesting so I wanted to understand it and now I can't ( well, not without some hunting anyway ). Yeah, I am horrible person for asking that basic editorial standards are applied. The funny thing is, only a decade ago that kind of shoddy work would not fly.. or at least not be so commonly found.
- euroderf 7mo agoPoints taken.