Timeline for Is it bad form to use the word exciting in a paper, when discussing other people's results?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 24, 2015 at 12:19 | comment | added | henning no longer feeds AI | @Calchas. the point is to say this is the exciting result, not it is an exciting result. | |
| Jun 24, 2015 at 12:09 | comment | added | Calchas | Actually I think it's useful for the author to highlight the important part of the work, including the most relevant preceding result. Most of the time when reading a paper one's attention drifts in at least one place, so when the author says "this is the exciting result" at least the reader knows he should pay attention and regard this part as important. If the author leaves it cut and dry then the reader might not even notice it. So when writing it is courtesy to have some sympathy for your reader and leave in a few sign posts. | |
| Jun 24, 2015 at 10:22 | comment | added | henning no longer feeds AI | Regarding your later comment on your question, the answer applies regardless of whether the results are yours or those of someone else. If you motivate your contribution by referring to a preexisting study, briefly explain the motivation further. For example, rather than saying that a previous study is "exciting", write "Previous results challenge the established notion that X always causes Y, and thereby invite the question when X does or does not cause Y. We investigate these boundary conditions." This clarifies what makes previous work exciting and explains how it motivates your work. | |
| Jun 23, 2015 at 14:49 | comment | added | yo' | Also, if you still feel for using the word, you can use for the question, not for the result, for instance: ... many people gave partial answers to this exciting question by Doe [Doe08]. We contribute by ... | |
| Jun 23, 2015 at 10:01 | history | edited | henning no longer feeds AI | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Jun 23, 2015 at 9:56 | history | answered | henning no longer feeds AI | CC BY-SA 3.0 |