I have qualms about pillorying examples that have been published. In my
opinion, the fault lies less with the original researchers than with the
editors and referees of the journals. We have all done foolish things
through ignorance, but referees should be confident enough to return
papers with the comment "I don't understand this." The editor may then
find another referee with more appropriate knowledge, but should also note
that the paper - whether good or bad science - is not intelligible to the
range of readers.
Not publishing "write only" papers would enormously cut down on the
exponential growth in publications.
R. Allan Reese Email: [log in to unmask]
|