I would like to review some important new results on topic X. Several recent studies using some complicated new experimental technique together with large computer simulations have led to new insights and understanding. This is a major advance in the field and attracting significant attention. But there are still many open questions and there remains much work to be done.
Did you learn anything from this "review" beyond that X is a hot topic that is generating lots of papers?
Unfortunately, I find many "News and Views" or "Perspective" pieces and review articles read a bit like the paragraph above. I would really like to know what specific new insights have been gained and what the open questions are.
Why do we often degenerate to the generic?
It is actually hard work to figure out what the specific insights are and to clearly communicate them, particularly in a few sentences.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
From Leo Szilard to the Tasmanian wilderness
Richard Flanagan is an esteemed Australian writer. My son recently gave our family a copy of Flanagan's recent book, Question 7 . It is...
-
Is it something to do with breakdown of the Born-Oppenheimer approximation? In molecular spectroscopy you occasionally hear this term thro... -
If you look on the arXiv and in Nature journals there is a continuing stream of people claiming to observe superconductivity in some new mat...
-
I welcome discussion on this point. I don't think it is as sensitive or as important a topic as the author order on papers. With rega...
A cynic reading this might worry that no significant advances have actually been made recently in topic X, so there is nothing of value to summarize.
ReplyDeleteI agree that sometimes this is the issue.
DeleteIt depends what your expectations for the News and Views sections are. Personally, I use them only for a brief summary (enough for me to decide whether it's worth reading the main paper). They all conclude that much work is ahead, so that part one can just ignore.
ReplyDelete