Timeline for How to politely point out an issue with a cited paper?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 11, 2016 at 15:47 | vote | accept | Byte Lab | ||
| Oct 8, 2016 at 16:31 | comment | added | Dirk | I see. However, your formulation looks fine to me, nothing impolite about it | |
| Oct 8, 2016 at 16:29 | comment | added | Byte Lab | Hi Dirk, @jmite points out one of my concerns here. While I could simply state my improvements, I think pointing out flaws in the previous work also highlights and clarifies the point I'm trying to make. For example, if I say, "I did <x>, which has <y> benefits", it's (arguably) less clear than saying, "The previous work did <x>. This won't work for <u>, <v>, and <w> reasons. My work is <y>, which addresses these reasons because <a>, <b>, <c>." By pointing out the flaws in the previous technique, it forms a more cohesive argument and exposition. | |
| Oct 8, 2016 at 14:51 | comment | added | Dirk | Well, make the contributions explicit. I don't see why this can only be done impolitely. | |
| Oct 8, 2016 at 14:45 | comment | added | Joey Eremondi | That's a tough one. My worry is that you'll get feedback from reviewers saying the contributions over previous work were not made explicit enough... | |
| Oct 8, 2016 at 3:13 | history | answered | Dirk | CC BY-SA 3.0 |