4 ms·
...therefore, conferences are essentially broken. A system that rewards incomplete publishing and lack of details is essentially useless for science. Isn't sci
by kaoD 13y ago
...therefore, conferences are essentially broken.
A system that rewards incomplete publishing and lack of details is essentially useless for science. Isn't science about sharing efforts instead of providing headaches?
I'm very frustrated at the current state: scientist pay both to publish and access. The publish-or-perish mechanic puts researchers in a very unfair position against the big players.
Why are researchers not publishing in open access?
- gcr 13y agoWrt conferences, "lack of details" is solved by supplemental material; "incomplete publishing" is solved by splitting your efforts into multiple papers. Most authors do this anyway if the idea is big enough/if they can get away with it. ("Oh goodie, more papers! More citations!") See, I'm of the opposite opinion. If you can't fit your idea into page limits, it's not worth my time reading it because it shows that you don't care enough to exrpess it concisely. I can get much more value for my (limited) time by getting the gist of ten papers than if i took the time to fully understand the implementation details of three. Papers are documentation. Would you rather read a 60-page man page that says "How to do $X" or a 5-page one? If you have important details, publish them in a journal.
- kaoD 13y agoI wasn't only referring to conferences but also journals. AFAIK journals have page limits too. My opinion: if something is long... well, it's long! Peer reviewers should also judge if the length is reasonable, right? I'd rather read a 60-page detailed manual than a 5-page "press release". You're presenting a false dichotomy: concision and details are not incompatible.