| If I report that "I did this, and then this happened". That's close enough to the truth to call it that. It's available in not just Mathematics: Chemistry, Physics for example. Then you have the type: "I saw this interesting thing", and that's also close enough to the truth. Geology, Astronomy, Archeology are examples. That's a study. But if I look at my own navel and decide "I like this idea because it makes sense to me", that's not a study. That type should get a different name. Theoretical Physics is the high quality version of this. I'm not saying there's no value in this type of thing!! Just that it's not a study. Maybe call them "research papers". > Sometimes I think Google Scholars is a mistake. The general public aren't supposed to be exposed to research literature. Yikes!!! So basically you want people to be sheep and just listen to what they are told, with no access to underlying material? I'd rather people look at the source, and understand it poorly, vs not look at it at all. |
No. It's when someone else does "this" and reproduces the result only using your article, only then that's close to truth.