- #36
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
2023 Award
- 22,195
- 6,878
As far as I can tell, the staff at PF ARE concerned about the content. Fluffy or impressive language is superfluous if the underlying concept is faulty.ubavontuba said:I'm not placing a relative value on anything. I was merely hypothesizing that the evolution of the syntax used may have been caused by the peer-reviewers being more likley to be impressed by concepts using impressive sounding language over concepts of equal value (to science) simply expressed. This would only be a human thing to do. If you want your journal to have the flavor of importance, it needs to sound important... right?
Wrong!ubavontuba said:As a matter of statistics, how many peer-reviewed articles do you think have been published in the past 100 years? How many of those articles (in percent) have really had any significant impact on our knowledge base? Heck, most of them are just deriviations from the 100 year-old concepts of Einstein, Bohr, et al, right?
I think one is losing credibility with statements like this.ubavontuba said:Anyway, I worry about the language because the language has become a time-honored tradition. Should I go to church in ragged clothes and belch loudly during the sermon? I think not.