I guess it's up to you. But surely marking ≠ peer review?
-
-
Replying to @o_guest @shravanvasishth
My post is not so much about the writing (tho often poor) but about incomprehensible methods
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @deevybee @shravanvasishth
you mean the methods are incomprehensible regardless of good writing?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @deevybee @shravanvasishth
I thought I did. Perhaps it's caffeine that's missing.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
reading it again I see your point, but I stand my mine. If somebody doesn't understand the methods or indeed any
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
section it's down to bad writing. That's my position.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest
.
@o_guest Well, here is an e.g. I can just about comprehend this, but many wld struggle.I can't see how it could be explained more clearly?pic.twitter.com/0yJLekQVdQ
3 replies 2 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @deevybee
I can understand mostly but I couldn't rewrite to make it clearer without hours of (unpaid) work. But I think it can be. I mean I
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
have had some swathes of my writing in the past about the complex internals of models rewriten by coauthors. It's possible. Less
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
is often more. The reader deserves and needs better.
-
-
notwithstanding, I completely agree with you that it's very hard to parse for non experts in exactly those methods.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 11 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.