SilasBarta comments on Why Academic Papers Are A Terrible Discussion Forum - Less Wrong

25 Post author: alyssavance 20 June 2012 06:15PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (54)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: twanvl 21 June 2012 10:04:12PM 11 points [-]
  1. Papers have a tradition of violating the bottom line rule. In a classic paper, one starts with the conclusion in the abstract, and then builds up an argument for it in the paper itself.

While that is how paper are structured, it is in my experience not how they are written. The abstract is written last, or at least after the results are known, and summarizes the rest of the paper.

The real problem is the difficulty in getting negative results published, which pushes authors to make things appear better than they really are or to hunt for positive aspects.

Comment author: SilasBarta 26 June 2012 05:41:34PM 6 points [-]

Yeah, that struck me as a "WTF?" I mean, it may certainly be the case the authors decide their bottom line before coming up with the evidence and arguments for it, but you can't infer that from the fact that the abstract comes first and gives its conclusion -- they're not (or at least shouldn't be) written in the order you read the paper.

I would much prefer that an abstract give the paper's conclusion! I've seen too many abstracts that either leave it off, or leave out the key insight driving that conclusion, forcing me to dig through the paper, and generally defeating the purpose of it.