I have seen people write about other people's work: "it's so confusing that it must be good" but of coursing using 10x more words to get at this fallacious conclusion. Depressing to think some scientists think like this, and I didn't believe it myself until I saw it 1st hand.
-
-
For me if you can make people think "I can't believe no one did/said this before" you've written an awesome paper.
-
I think I have the opposite heuristic, I check with other people I know are smarter than me, and if no one else gets it as well then it's probably a shit paper.
-
Fair! But that's not 100% perfect. It is however, significantly better to many other heuristics.
-
Happy you all have so clear heuristic, I don't. Reader and writer points of view are not quite the same!
-
I don't have any heuristic TBH. I go through reading it and trying to understand it. The only thing close to a heuristic I have is I read the abstract and first few sentences and if I still don't know what they are on about, I infer they don't know how to write abstracts.

-
I guess you are commenting on the paper, you are a machine!
-
Perhaps this thread (or threads) is the perfect example of how narrative gets obscure ;)
- 8 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Lol yes I’ve always felt that that’s the worst “critique” ever. No substance, no scientific relevance...
-
Can carry a lot of weight though if it's your peer reviewers.

-
Yes indeed!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
And, yes, it has happened to me too. All of the above, sadly.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.
