Timeline for Why are textbook authors often not the most famous/cited researchers?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 25, 2018 at 7:23 | comment | added | WavesWashSands | @usr1234567 It's fairly common to do this in linguistics. A couple of examples are Haspelmath's Introducing morphology (which invents a bunch of new terminology for stuff he doesn't find clear) and Comrie's Aspect (often cited as a monograph on aspect these days despite being a textbook). | |
| May 24, 2018 at 12:36 | comment | added | usr1234567 | Not true for books from Donald Knuth. He uses and cites what others found and adds everything else what's missing. But his approach is rarely copied... | |
| May 24, 2018 at 2:32 | review | Low quality posts | |||
| May 24, 2018 at 4:55 | |||||
| May 24, 2018 at 2:13 | comment | added | Andy Putman | Why is this relevant? I'm an active researcher, and though I have no interest in writing a textbook, I produce documents that don't contain original research all the time (for various reasons). | |
| May 24, 2018 at 1:12 | review | First posts | |||
| May 24, 2018 at 2:28 | |||||
| May 24, 2018 at 1:10 | history | answered | johannes | CC BY-SA 4.0 |