|
|
|
|
|
|
by jacurtis
973 days ago
|
|
|
I think the fact that you have to ask this proves that it is objectively a bad paper. The whole point of academic papers is to contribute to the larger global knowledgebase. You acknowledge the work that was done before, you submit your contribution and then you suggest how people can build or expand upon your work. This paper in question is just trying to be a mic-drop, like a middle-finger to academia. Generally research papers cover background context as their 1st and 2nd sections (at least IEEE format papers do). So normally a paper like this would start with an introduction section which explains what the paper is accomplishing and then the background section number two would explain context for where the author is coming from or what inspired research or background to justify its value. These sections would provide the context you are looking for and at the very least give references for you to go back and learn about it on your own. Even a few sentences would have been powerful here. This paper does fail to really provide value in my opinion and is objectively a bad paper. With some additional context from the introduction and background this could be much more valuable. Less critical, but also important is to acknowledge limitations and suggest future research. Now with all that being said, I'm not saying research papers are perfect. It is easy to find examples that go too far the other way, with far too much verbosity and pomp and circumstance. So I do at least acknowledge the statement being made with this paper that maybe all you need is two words. The reality is we should be somewhere in the middle. I read 3-10 academic papers per week, and the average page length is usually around 10 pages and really should be closer to 3-4. So i acknowledge the statement being made here, but this paper is clearly a protest, and not actually a productive example. |
|
|