Scientists- in what % of papers you read does the main body of the paper fail to support the assertions made in the title or abstract?
-
if the paper's title or abstract says X and after reading it you are like "I don't think they made a good case for X", this goes into the "main text fails to support the abstract or the title" category... % in this case?
I most often see exaggerated claims in the introduction, particularly to motivate the research topic (environmental engineering/technology)