Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by RamblingCTO 824 days ago
Yes. But just publishing your observations is not enough. And this seems to be a published paper, which I find very weird.
1 comments

First, you might want to refresh your understanding of the scientific process. Its first step is "Observation/question." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Next, the acceptability of journal papers without conclusive experiments varies across fields. In some fields, such as observational sciences (e.g., astronomy, ecology, sociology), observational studies are common and valuable contributions to the literature. These studies often involve collecting and analyzing data from real-world observations, surveys, or existing datasets without the need for controlled experiments. In such cases, it is perfectly acceptable to publish papers based solely on observational data.

When you say, "is not enough," the question I respond with is "enough for what?" It's fully acceptable to publish a paper with observations in order to stimulate interest and encourage further research in the area. It's not necessary for a journal to require final results.

Finally, consider some of these famous and important papers which were published as observations without conclusive results. Should they have held back and waited until conclusive results were available?

1. Edwin Hubble's "A Relation between Distance and Radial Velocity among Extra-Galactic Nebulae"

2. Albert Einstein's "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity"

3. Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species"

And how old are these publications? And did you have a look at the paper that we're talking about?