Message-ID: <19991214160041.AAA28042@jubilee.ns.sympatico.ca@LOCALNAME> Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 11:56:13 -04 From: Kerry Miller <mailto:kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca> Subject: Re: The Scientist: What's Right? To: mailto:DEVEL-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Mike, > Scientific papers are not written to be read, they are written to be
> published. Mistakes found in these publications will certainly make
> future funding harder to get. A sure way not to make mistakes is to
> say nothing.
I agree, to some extent any writer uses the language to clarify their own thinking -- perhaps, particularly those in the vanguard. Those which get cited more often may come later on when the field has 'settled down' and some consistency has emerged -- but as you say, they may also be doing less original thinking.
> Interestingly, if one investigates the authorship cohort within the
> scientific publications put forward on a given topic and then compares
> these with the authorship cohort of issued patents on the same
> subject, one often finds almost no crossover!
Has anyone done this analysis for developmental literature, do you know? (For 'patent,' one would read, 'expected results'...)
> A savvy manager might make hay out of this situation.
I dont understand, or do you mean an information manager who could provide ready-reference maps as to who has cited whom? (I know there are some people working on this.)
Cheers, kerry