fascinating stuff. I was just today wondering why papers are so densely sprinkled with references. it almost feels like science writing is a game of playing lego, where the building blocks are references to other papers. I mean look at this sentence: "Given that implicit attitudes uniquely predict many everyday behavioral responses (Cameron et al. 2012; Galdi et al. 2008; Greenwald et al. 2009; McNulty et al. 2013; Perugini et al. 2010; Towles-Schwen & Fazio 2006; cf. Oswald et al. 2013), and potentially play a role in dysfunctional interpersonal relationships (see McNulty et al. 2013; Towles-Schwen & Fazio 2006), this traditional view of implicit attitudes suggests that the clinician’s role in updating maladaptive implicit affective memories seems necessary but challenging." do we really need ALL those references??
I'm still left wondering though, what incentives are keeping this system in place? if everyone agrees the entire paper writing / review process is painfully tedious, why haven't alternatives become more mainstream?
The research paper Adam Mastroainni wrote on his Substack recently and your post exploring the relationship between mood and weather are the kind of research papers that should be the norm. Use emojis, use informal language, insert a meme or two. Science writing that doesn't reach the reader, be it because of paywalls or dense prose, seems pretty pointless to me.
fascinating stuff. I was just today wondering why papers are so densely sprinkled with references. it almost feels like science writing is a game of playing lego, where the building blocks are references to other papers. I mean look at this sentence: "Given that implicit attitudes uniquely predict many everyday behavioral responses (Cameron et al. 2012; Galdi et al. 2008; Greenwald et al. 2009; McNulty et al. 2013; Perugini et al. 2010; Towles-Schwen & Fazio 2006; cf. Oswald et al. 2013), and potentially play a role in dysfunctional interpersonal relationships (see McNulty et al. 2013; Towles-Schwen & Fazio 2006), this traditional view of implicit attitudes suggests that the clinician’s role in updating maladaptive implicit affective memories seems necessary but challenging." do we really need ALL those references??
I'm still left wondering though, what incentives are keeping this system in place? if everyone agrees the entire paper writing / review process is painfully tedious, why haven't alternatives become more mainstream?
The research paper Adam Mastroainni wrote on his Substack recently and your post exploring the relationship between mood and weather are the kind of research papers that should be the norm. Use emojis, use informal language, insert a meme or two. Science writing that doesn't reach the reader, be it because of paywalls or dense prose, seems pretty pointless to me.