| > The paper in this post itself has its own Limitations section. I haven't actually read the paper. I was reacting to the title. > what kind of future research could help expound on the pitfalls of the current research. I think a better way of documenting research to people is by describing what scientific boxes where checked. In the given case for example one of the boxes maybe, "Is there an anatomical distinction between retinas of sexes?" — If that is true then we can see if machine learning can detect such differences. Take computer science for example.
A publication with the title "Professors create a machine that can think" would maybe published as "Professors create machine that passes Turing test [0]" Another example, can be that is medicine. The research in question maybe if a microbe A causes a flue. Instead of a publication being "Microbe A causes disease B". A better Publication IMO should revolve around, "Microbe A had passed Koch's postulates [1] for disease B" [0]:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test [1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch's_postulates |