Mixing
Should I cite a really bad research paper published in my small research area?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
I am working on a special topic in applied math. We are trying to explore a new and largely unexplored area in our line of research. Our hope is to be the first researchers to have solid results in this new line of research.
Couple days ago, my co-author and I have stumbled upon a paper that is titled almost exactly as the topic that we wish to explore and publish.
However, upon further reading, we realized that the paper (despite being published in a journal) is actually very low quality. Not only that the theoretical guarantees does not support any of the applications in the paper, the theories themselves are also very poorly explained, definitions are missing, handwavy at times, and we suspect that the proofs are wrong, but cannot be verified due to author's lengthy and unconventional proof style, which involves some vague interpretation of results contained in other references, one of which is written in a language that is completely foreign to us and couldn't be found online after a quick Google search.
This isn't to say that the authors are cranks (even though the paper reads like one). The paper is roughly 10 pages. Properly formatted in the style of the journal. With ample (albeit, strange) diagrams. It is just that the results are confounding, suspicious, and paper is lacking in rigor, despite being peer reviewed and published in a journal.
For what it is worth, the authors are not working at a top-tier research institute and the journal is not the highest quality of this field.
What should we do when we start our writing process?
Should we painstakingly go through the process of providing a
critique of a paper that is written in such a way that it is difficult to critique (without dismissing it as poor writing)?Or should we ignore the paper and pretend that we didn't see it? (Despite the fact we wish to work on the same, very specific, topic?)
Ultimately, what should you do when you see bad research papers like these?
publications citations writing literature-review
edited 17 mins ago
Wrzlprmft♦
32.2k9105176
asked 4 hours ago
Enlightened One
4,91374675
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
I am working on a special topic in applied math. We are trying to explore a new and largely unexplored area in our line of research. Our hope is to be the first researchers to have solid results in this new line of research.
Couple days ago, my co-author and I have stumbled upon a paper that is titled almost exactly as the topic that we wish to explore and publish.
However, upon further reading, we realized that the paper (despite being published in a journal) is actually very low quality. Not only that the theoretical guarantees does not support any of the applications in the paper, the theories themselves are also very poorly explained, definitions are missing, handwavy at times, and we suspect that the proofs are wrong, but cannot be verified due to author's lengthy and unconventional proof style, which involves some vague interpretation of results contained in other references, one of which is written in a language that is completely foreign to us and couldn't be found online after a quick Google search.
This isn't to say that the authors are cranks (even though the paper reads like one). The paper is roughly 10 pages. Properly formatted in the style of the journal. With ample (albeit, strange) diagrams. It is just that the results are confounding, suspicious, and paper is lacking in rigor, despite being peer reviewed and published in a journal.
For what it is worth, the authors are not working at a top-tier research institute and the journal is not the highest quality of this field.
What should we do when we start our writing process?
Should we painstakingly go through the process of providing a
critique of a paper that is written in such a way that it is difficult to critique (without dismissing it as poor writing)?Or should we ignore the paper and pretend that we didn't see it? (Despite the fact we wish to work on the same, very specific, topic?)
Ultimately, what should you do when you see bad research papers like these?
publications citations writing literature-review
edited 17 mins ago
Wrzlprmft♦
32.2k9105176
asked 4 hours ago
Enlightened One
4,91374675
1
I'm not sure this fits [disreputable-publishers], that is more about dishonest behaviour in publishing rather than publishing potentially low quality papers.
– Cimbali
4 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
I am working on a special topic in applied math. We are trying to explore a new and largely unexplored area in our line of research. Our hope is to be the first researchers to have solid results in this new line of research.
Couple days ago, my co-author and I have stumbled upon a paper that is titled almost exactly as the topic that we wish to explore and publish.
However, upon further reading, we realized that the paper (despite being published in a journal) is actually very low quality. Not only that the theoretical guarantees does not support any of the applications in the paper, the theories themselves are also very poorly explained, definitions are missing, handwavy at times, and we suspect that the proofs are wrong, but cannot be verified due to author's lengthy and unconventional proof style, which involves some vague interpretation of results contained in other references, one of which is written in a language that is completely foreign to us and couldn't be found online after a quick Google search.
This isn't to say that the authors are cranks (even though the paper reads like one). The paper is roughly 10 pages. Properly formatted in the style of the journal. With ample (albeit, strange) diagrams. It is just that the results are confounding, suspicious, and paper is lacking in rigor, despite being peer reviewed and published in a journal.
For what it is worth, the authors are not working at a top-tier research institute and the journal is not the highest quality of this field.
What should we do when we start our writing process?
Should we painstakingly go through the process of providing a
critique of a paper that is written in such a way that it is difficult to critique (without dismissing it as poor writing)?Or should we ignore the paper and pretend that we didn't see it? (Despite the fact we wish to work on the same, very specific, topic?)
Ultimately, what should you do when you see bad research papers like these?
publications citations writing literature-review
edited 17 mins ago
Wrzlprmft♦
32.2k9105176
asked 4 hours ago
Enlightened One
4,91374675
I am working on a special topic in applied math. We are trying to explore a new and largely unexplored area in our line of research. Our hope is to be the first researchers to have solid results in this new line of research.
Couple days ago, my co-author and I have stumbled upon a paper that is titled almost exactly as the topic that we wish to explore and publish.
However, upon further reading, we realized that the paper (despite being published in a journal) is actually very low quality. Not only that the theoretical guarantees does not support any of the applications in the paper, the theories themselves are also very poorly explained, definitions are missing, handwavy at times, and we suspect that the proofs are wrong, but cannot be verified due to author's lengthy and unconventional proof style, which involves some vague interpretation of results contained in other references, one of which is written in a language that is completely foreign to us and couldn't be found online after a quick Google search.
This isn't to say that the authors are cranks (even though the paper reads like one). The paper is roughly 10 pages. Properly formatted in the style of the journal. With ample (albeit, strange) diagrams. It is just that the results are confounding, suspicious, and paper is lacking in rigor, despite being peer reviewed and published in a journal.
For what it is worth, the authors are not working at a top-tier research institute and the journal is not the highest quality of this field.
What should we do when we start our writing process?
Should we painstakingly go through the process of providing a
critique of a paper that is written in such a way that it is difficult to critique (without dismissing it as poor writing)?Or should we ignore the paper and pretend that we didn't see it? (Despite the fact we wish to work on the same, very specific, topic?)
Ultimately, what should you do when you see bad research papers like these?
publications citations writing literature-review
publications citations writing literature-review
edited 17 mins ago
Wrzlprmft♦
32.2k9105176
asked 4 hours ago
Enlightened One
4,91374675
edited 17 mins ago
Wrzlprmft♦
32.2k9105176
asked 4 hours ago
Enlightened One
4,91374675
edited 17 mins ago
Wrzlprmft♦
32.2k9105176
edited 17 mins ago
Wrzlprmft♦
32.2k9105176
edited 17 mins ago
Wrzlprmft♦
32.2k9105176
32.2k9105176
asked 4 hours ago
Enlightened One
4,91374675
asked 4 hours ago
Enlightened One
4,91374675
asked 4 hours ago
Enlightened One
4,91374675
4,91374675
1
I'm not sure this fits [disreputable-publishers], that is more about dishonest behaviour in publishing rather than publishing potentially low quality papers.
– Cimbali
4 hours ago
add a comment |Â
1
I'm not sure this fits [disreputable-publishers], that is more about dishonest behaviour in publishing rather than publishing potentially low quality papers.
– Cimbali
4 hours ago
1
1
I'm not sure this fits [disreputable-publishers], that is more about dishonest behaviour in publishing rather than publishing potentially low quality papers.
– Cimbali
4 hours ago
I'm not sure this fits [disreputable-publishers], that is more about dishonest behaviour in publishing rather than publishing potentially low quality papers.
– Cimbali
4 hours ago
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
If you can find a counterexample to one of the paper's proofs without too much work, then this would be critique enough, I think. You are lucky to be working in mathematics, where the falseness of a claim can be clearly shown.
I would not spend too much time on providing a critique. Ignoring the paper is what most people would do in this situation, but is unethical. Some journals' Guidelines for Authors explicitly require citing all relevant literature.
answered 4 hours ago
Sander Heinsalu
36516
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
The paper must be acknowledged as proper research is based on published literature. You don’t really need to provide some passionate negative critique of the paper like you’ve done here. You can merely point out main reasons why it could not be included in your analysis directly. However I am sure many of the points you raised here should be fairly straightforward to be clarified by the first author (e.g. some relevant passage in seemingly alien language). It would be better to state you’ve tried to clarify key points you couldn’t understand on your own. You never know: perhaps not everyone agrees in that the previous paper is that unclear.
answered 46 mins ago
Scientist
5,32612250
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Yes you should cite it and explain your rebuttal of their claims or method using proper scientific arguments. If I were you I would refrain from using words like “hand waving†or “cranks†in a scientific context.
Whether or not you are the first to discover something isn’t really something you can control. There seem to be still time for you to be the first to get it right.
answered 1 min ago
Cape Code
23.8k677127
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
If you can find a counterexample to one of the paper's proofs without too much work, then this would be critique enough, I think. You are lucky to be working in mathematics, where the falseness of a claim can be clearly shown.
I would not spend too much time on providing a critique. Ignoring the paper is what most people would do in this situation, but is unethical. Some journals' Guidelines for Authors explicitly require citing all relevant literature.
answered 4 hours ago
Sander Heinsalu
36516
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
If you can find a counterexample to one of the paper's proofs without too much work, then this would be critique enough, I think. You are lucky to be working in mathematics, where the falseness of a claim can be clearly shown.
I would not spend too much time on providing a critique. Ignoring the paper is what most people would do in this situation, but is unethical. Some journals' Guidelines for Authors explicitly require citing all relevant literature.
answered 4 hours ago
Sander Heinsalu
36516
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
If you can find a counterexample to one of the paper's proofs without too much work, then this would be critique enough, I think. You are lucky to be working in mathematics, where the falseness of a claim can be clearly shown.
I would not spend too much time on providing a critique. Ignoring the paper is what most people would do in this situation, but is unethical. Some journals' Guidelines for Authors explicitly require citing all relevant literature.
answered 4 hours ago
Sander Heinsalu
36516
If you can find a counterexample to one of the paper's proofs without too much work, then this would be critique enough, I think. You are lucky to be working in mathematics, where the falseness of a claim can be clearly shown.
I would not spend too much time on providing a critique. Ignoring the paper is what most people would do in this situation, but is unethical. Some journals' Guidelines for Authors explicitly require citing all relevant literature.
answered 4 hours ago
Sander Heinsalu
36516
answered 4 hours ago
Sander Heinsalu
36516
answered 4 hours ago
Sander Heinsalu
36516
answered 4 hours ago
Sander Heinsalu
36516
36516
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
The paper must be acknowledged as proper research is based on published literature. You don’t really need to provide some passionate negative critique of the paper like you’ve done here. You can merely point out main reasons why it could not be included in your analysis directly. However I am sure many of the points you raised here should be fairly straightforward to be clarified by the first author (e.g. some relevant passage in seemingly alien language). It would be better to state you’ve tried to clarify key points you couldn’t understand on your own. You never know: perhaps not everyone agrees in that the previous paper is that unclear.
answered 46 mins ago
Scientist
5,32612250
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
The paper must be acknowledged as proper research is based on published literature. You don’t really need to provide some passionate negative critique of the paper like you’ve done here. You can merely point out main reasons why it could not be included in your analysis directly. However I am sure many of the points you raised here should be fairly straightforward to be clarified by the first author (e.g. some relevant passage in seemingly alien language). It would be better to state you’ve tried to clarify key points you couldn’t understand on your own. You never know: perhaps not everyone agrees in that the previous paper is that unclear.
answered 46 mins ago
Scientist
5,32612250
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
The paper must be acknowledged as proper research is based on published literature. You don’t really need to provide some passionate negative critique of the paper like you’ve done here. You can merely point out main reasons why it could not be included in your analysis directly. However I am sure many of the points you raised here should be fairly straightforward to be clarified by the first author (e.g. some relevant passage in seemingly alien language). It would be better to state you’ve tried to clarify key points you couldn’t understand on your own. You never know: perhaps not everyone agrees in that the previous paper is that unclear.
answered 46 mins ago
Scientist
5,32612250
The paper must be acknowledged as proper research is based on published literature. You don’t really need to provide some passionate negative critique of the paper like you’ve done here. You can merely point out main reasons why it could not be included in your analysis directly. However I am sure many of the points you raised here should be fairly straightforward to be clarified by the first author (e.g. some relevant passage in seemingly alien language). It would be better to state you’ve tried to clarify key points you couldn’t understand on your own. You never know: perhaps not everyone agrees in that the previous paper is that unclear.
answered 46 mins ago
Scientist
5,32612250
answered 46 mins ago
Scientist
5,32612250
answered 46 mins ago
Scientist
5,32612250
answered 46 mins ago
Scientist
5,32612250
5,32612250
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Yes you should cite it and explain your rebuttal of their claims or method using proper scientific arguments. If I were you I would refrain from using words like “hand waving†or “cranks†in a scientific context.
Whether or not you are the first to discover something isn’t really something you can control. There seem to be still time for you to be the first to get it right.
answered 1 min ago
Cape Code
23.8k677127
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Yes you should cite it and explain your rebuttal of their claims or method using proper scientific arguments. If I were you I would refrain from using words like “hand waving†or “cranks†in a scientific context.
Whether or not you are the first to discover something isn’t really something you can control. There seem to be still time for you to be the first to get it right.
answered 1 min ago
Cape Code
23.8k677127
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Yes you should cite it and explain your rebuttal of their claims or method using proper scientific arguments. If I were you I would refrain from using words like “hand waving†or “cranks†in a scientific context.
Whether or not you are the first to discover something isn’t really something you can control. There seem to be still time for you to be the first to get it right.
answered 1 min ago
Cape Code
23.8k677127
Yes you should cite it and explain your rebuttal of their claims or method using proper scientific arguments. If I were you I would refrain from using words like “hand waving†or “cranks†in a scientific context.
Whether or not you are the first to discover something isn’t really something you can control. There seem to be still time for you to be the first to get it right.
answered 1 min ago
Cape Code
23.8k677127
answered 1 min ago
Cape Code
23.8k677127
answered 1 min ago
Cape Code
23.8k677127
answered 1 min ago
Cape Code
23.8k677127
23.8k677127
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f117949%2fshould-i-cite-a-really-bad-research-paper-published-in-my-small-research-area%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
I'm not sure this fits [disreputable-publishers], that is more about dishonest behaviour in publishing rather than publishing potentially low quality papers.
– Cimbali
4 hours ago