Timeline for In writing a paper, how far can criticism of previous works go?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 11, 2016 at 1:57 | comment | added | eykanal | @thedarkwanderer - Honestly, I'm not familiar with many instances of that occurring. From what I've seen in neuroscience, statistics, and signal processing, new methods will almost always be published as a standalone paper. The method paper may contain some data, but the point is to emphasize that the technique works. As such, those methods are INTENDED to generate response. If you think they implemented a method incorrectly, I guess you would just say that, although that sounds kinda like a rookie mistake that you would hope the journal would catch. | |
| Nov 10, 2015 at 19:30 | comment | added | Please stop being evil | Could you add a section re:criticizing their methods? | |
| Sep 1, 2012 at 20:24 | vote | accept | ShadowWarrior | ||
| Aug 8, 2012 at 23:52 | comment | added | JRN | I agree, especially with the last sentence. I have seen papers use very mild language such as "[X] stated this as a theorem without proof, and yet the following counterexample shows why this statement is false." My favorite is: "[X]'s paper is identical nearly word-for-word to [Y]'s paper." | |
| Aug 8, 2012 at 17:15 | history | answered | eykanal | CC BY-SA 3.0 |