Does the length of a Scientific report imply anything about credibility or thoroughness?What will happen to non open-access publications in the UK after 2014?A note vs a “research paper”In peer-review, is it common for a reviewer to be shown and asked to comment on other reviewers' reports?Lack of available reviews on scientific papersIs it common to be given 6 months for a minor revision outcome?When refereeing a paper, stating I am not an author of suggested literatureAre there any research databases that accept submission of published articles?Peer-review in the year 2000Can work documented within a manual be published in a journal?
Science fiction short story where aliens contact a drunk about Earth's impending destruction
Configurable API Version for Anonymous Blocks?
In what ways can a Non-paladin access Paladin spells?
How much code would a codegolf golf if a codegolf could golf code?
A square inside an equilateral triangle
Why aren't RCS openings an issue for spacecraft heat shields?
How to refer to a regex group in awk regex?
Most practical knots for hitching a line to an object while keeping the bitter end as tight as possible, without sag?
How to compare two different formulations of a problem?
Is it possible to create a golf ball sized star?
Does the length of a Scientific report imply anything about credibility or thoroughness?
Is refusing to concede in the face of an unstoppable Nexus combo punishable?
LeetCode: Pascal's Triangle C#
Are illustrations in novels frowned upon?
What is this symbol: semicircles facing eachother
Were there 486SX revisions without an FPU on the die?
confused about grep and the * wildcard
Is it appropriate for a prospective landlord to ask me for my credit report?
How to persuade recruiters to send me the Job Description?
How is "sein" conjugated in this sub-sentence?
Why is 日本 read as "nihon" but not "nitsuhon"?
How can I watch the 17th (or last, if less) line in files of a folder?
Potential new partner angry about first collaboration - how to answer email to close up this encounter in a graceful manner
Why doesn't the Falcon-9 first stage use three legs to land?
Does the length of a Scientific report imply anything about credibility or thoroughness?
What will happen to non open-access publications in the UK after 2014?A note vs a “research paper”In peer-review, is it common for a reviewer to be shown and asked to comment on other reviewers' reports?Lack of available reviews on scientific papersIs it common to be given 6 months for a minor revision outcome?When refereeing a paper, stating I am not an author of suggested literatureAre there any research databases that accept submission of published articles?Peer-review in the year 2000Can work documented within a manual be published in a journal?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
Background
In a question about the Green New Deal, I posted a comment to an answer that asserted the Green New Deal was not based in any science:
It's not a surprise that such a report [sic: read resolution] is lacking in science.
In context, his statement is referring to the Green New Deal itself, not the Special Report. In my comment, I mention that the resolution cites the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 ºC. The fact that that the Green New Deal does cite the report means that it is not utterly lacking in science (i.e. as opposed to citing nothing). While United States legislation does not have requirements for rigor, my question is about traits pertaining specifically to the special report.
With regard to the Special Report, I mention its page length:
It does include science. The whole resolution is premised on the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5C which is over 600 pages in full length. I was just curious about an omission of a detail.
My implicit assumption was that the longer the length of a peer reviewed report the higher its credibility. I am not referring to the Green New Deal; I know united states resolutions do not have any research standard.
That said, given the following comment, I am now questioning the assumption of length in relation to credibility:
Why is the length of that report relevant?
This comment is what lead me to ask...
Question
Does the length of a peer reviewed scientific report imply in any way that it is more credible or thorough in its results?
publications peer-review
asked 8 hours ago
isakbobisakbob
1206 bronze badges
add a comment |
Background
In a question about the Green New Deal, I posted a comment to an answer that asserted the Green New Deal was not based in any science:
It's not a surprise that such a report [sic: read resolution] is lacking in science.
In context, his statement is referring to the Green New Deal itself, not the Special Report. In my comment, I mention that the resolution cites the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 ºC. The fact that that the Green New Deal does cite the report means that it is not utterly lacking in science (i.e. as opposed to citing nothing). While United States legislation does not have requirements for rigor, my question is about traits pertaining specifically to the special report.
With regard to the Special Report, I mention its page length:
It does include science. The whole resolution is premised on the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5C which is over 600 pages in full length. I was just curious about an omission of a detail.
My implicit assumption was that the longer the length of a peer reviewed report the higher its credibility. I am not referring to the Green New Deal; I know united states resolutions do not have any research standard.
That said, given the following comment, I am now questioning the assumption of length in relation to credibility:
Why is the length of that report relevant?
This comment is what lead me to ask...
Question
Does the length of a peer reviewed scientific report imply in any way that it is more credible or thorough in its results?
publications peer-review
asked 8 hours ago
isakbobisakbob
1206 bronze badges
1
There are several problems with this post. First, you assume policy documents are the same as peer reviewed scientific documents. They are not. Second, you appear to assume policy documents are peer reviewed. Most are not. Last, your question reads as a rant because the background has nothing to do with your question. If you were to delete your background, your question, might fit into the scope of this site, but it is largely opinion based.
– Richard Erickson
7 hours ago
I have updated my answer. There did not seem to be a clear distinction between the policy (which I am aware has no standard for rigor) and the report, which is a technical document. My question was about the Special Report specifically.
– isakbob
7 hours ago
add a comment |
Background
In a question about the Green New Deal, I posted a comment to an answer that asserted the Green New Deal was not based in any science:
It's not a surprise that such a report [sic: read resolution] is lacking in science.
In context, his statement is referring to the Green New Deal itself, not the Special Report. In my comment, I mention that the resolution cites the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 ºC. The fact that that the Green New Deal does cite the report means that it is not utterly lacking in science (i.e. as opposed to citing nothing). While United States legislation does not have requirements for rigor, my question is about traits pertaining specifically to the special report.
With regard to the Special Report, I mention its page length:
It does include science. The whole resolution is premised on the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5C which is over 600 pages in full length. I was just curious about an omission of a detail.
My implicit assumption was that the longer the length of a peer reviewed report the higher its credibility. I am not referring to the Green New Deal; I know united states resolutions do not have any research standard.
That said, given the following comment, I am now questioning the assumption of length in relation to credibility:
Why is the length of that report relevant?
This comment is what lead me to ask...
Question
Does the length of a peer reviewed scientific report imply in any way that it is more credible or thorough in its results?
publications peer-review
asked 8 hours ago
isakbobisakbob
1206 bronze badges
Background
In a question about the Green New Deal, I posted a comment to an answer that asserted the Green New Deal was not based in any science:
It's not a surprise that such a report [sic: read resolution] is lacking in science.
In context, his statement is referring to the Green New Deal itself, not the Special Report. In my comment, I mention that the resolution cites the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 ºC. The fact that that the Green New Deal does cite the report means that it is not utterly lacking in science (i.e. as opposed to citing nothing). While United States legislation does not have requirements for rigor, my question is about traits pertaining specifically to the special report.
With regard to the Special Report, I mention its page length:
It does include science. The whole resolution is premised on the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5C which is over 600 pages in full length. I was just curious about an omission of a detail.
My implicit assumption was that the longer the length of a peer reviewed report the higher its credibility. I am not referring to the Green New Deal; I know united states resolutions do not have any research standard.
That said, given the following comment, I am now questioning the assumption of length in relation to credibility:
Why is the length of that report relevant?
This comment is what lead me to ask...
Question
Does the length of a peer reviewed scientific report imply in any way that it is more credible or thorough in its results?
publications peer-review
publications peer-review
asked 8 hours ago
isakbobisakbob
1206 bronze badges
asked 8 hours ago
isakbobisakbob
1206 bronze badges
edited 7 hours ago
isakbob
asked 8 hours ago
isakbobisakbob
1206 bronze badges
asked 8 hours ago
isakbobisakbob
1206 bronze badges
asked 8 hours ago
isakbobisakbob
1206 bronze badges
1206 bronze badges
1
There are several problems with this post. First, you assume policy documents are the same as peer reviewed scientific documents. They are not. Second, you appear to assume policy documents are peer reviewed. Most are not. Last, your question reads as a rant because the background has nothing to do with your question. If you were to delete your background, your question, might fit into the scope of this site, but it is largely opinion based.
– Richard Erickson
7 hours ago
I have updated my answer. There did not seem to be a clear distinction between the policy (which I am aware has no standard for rigor) and the report, which is a technical document. My question was about the Special Report specifically.
– isakbob
7 hours ago
add a comment |
1
There are several problems with this post. First, you assume policy documents are the same as peer reviewed scientific documents. They are not. Second, you appear to assume policy documents are peer reviewed. Most are not. Last, your question reads as a rant because the background has nothing to do with your question. If you were to delete your background, your question, might fit into the scope of this site, but it is largely opinion based.
– Richard Erickson
7 hours ago
I have updated my answer. There did not seem to be a clear distinction between the policy (which I am aware has no standard for rigor) and the report, which is a technical document. My question was about the Special Report specifically.
– isakbob
7 hours ago
1
1
There are several problems with this post. First, you assume policy documents are the same as peer reviewed scientific documents. They are not. Second, you appear to assume policy documents are peer reviewed. Most are not. Last, your question reads as a rant because the background has nothing to do with your question. If you were to delete your background, your question, might fit into the scope of this site, but it is largely opinion based.
– Richard Erickson
7 hours ago
There are several problems with this post. First, you assume policy documents are the same as peer reviewed scientific documents. They are not. Second, you appear to assume policy documents are peer reviewed. Most are not. Last, your question reads as a rant because the background has nothing to do with your question. If you were to delete your background, your question, might fit into the scope of this site, but it is largely opinion based.
– Richard Erickson
7 hours ago
I have updated my answer. There did not seem to be a clear distinction between the policy (which I am aware has no standard for rigor) and the report, which is a technical document. My question was about the Special Report specifically.
– isakbob
7 hours ago
I have updated my answer. There did not seem to be a clear distinction between the policy (which I am aware has no standard for rigor) and the report, which is a technical document. My question was about the Special Report specifically.
– isakbob
7 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Very hard to say in general. A 600-page report could be 600 pages of garbage. Obviously a super-short report couldn't be very thorough, or contain very much detail/depth.
If someone said "I have here a 600-page scientific report: is it any good?" I would have no way to know.
If you want to make a claim for the credibility of IPCC reports specifically, I would quote the Union of Concerned Scientists:
The IPCC’s technical reports derive their credibility principally from an extensive, transparent, and iterative peer review process that, as mentioned above, is considered far more exhaustive than that associated with a single peer-reviewed publication in a scientific journal. This is due to the number of reviewers, the breadth of their disciplinary backgrounds and scientific perspectives, and the inclusion of independent “review editors” who certify that all comments have been fairly considered and appropriately resolved by the authors.
Recursively, you would then have to support the credibility of UCS, which Wikipedia (which attempts to be neutral) calls a "nonprofit science advocacy organization".
answered 7 hours ago
Ben BolkerBen Bolker
4353 silver badges11 bronze badges
add a comment |
This depends on the field. In mathematics, a significant paper can be short or long, as can a lesser paper.
In the sciences, it would depend on how much needs to be said about methodology. A significant paper could, in theory, be written without saying much about methodology as long as it is fairly standard. But it would get longer if the methodology is novel and needs significant exposition.
I'd say, therefore, that in general, length is a poor indicator of quality. It is what is said, not how many words it takes to say it.
answered 7 hours ago
BuffyBuffy
78.2k21 gold badges240 silver badges348 bronze badges
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "415"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f135001%2fdoes-the-length-of-a-scientific-report-imply-anything-about-credibility-or-thoro%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Very hard to say in general. A 600-page report could be 600 pages of garbage. Obviously a super-short report couldn't be very thorough, or contain very much detail/depth.
If someone said "I have here a 600-page scientific report: is it any good?" I would have no way to know.
If you want to make a claim for the credibility of IPCC reports specifically, I would quote the Union of Concerned Scientists:
The IPCC’s technical reports derive their credibility principally from an extensive, transparent, and iterative peer review process that, as mentioned above, is considered far more exhaustive than that associated with a single peer-reviewed publication in a scientific journal. This is due to the number of reviewers, the breadth of their disciplinary backgrounds and scientific perspectives, and the inclusion of independent “review editors” who certify that all comments have been fairly considered and appropriately resolved by the authors.
Recursively, you would then have to support the credibility of UCS, which Wikipedia (which attempts to be neutral) calls a "nonprofit science advocacy organization".
answered 7 hours ago
Ben BolkerBen Bolker
4353 silver badges11 bronze badges
add a comment |
Very hard to say in general. A 600-page report could be 600 pages of garbage. Obviously a super-short report couldn't be very thorough, or contain very much detail/depth.
If someone said "I have here a 600-page scientific report: is it any good?" I would have no way to know.
If you want to make a claim for the credibility of IPCC reports specifically, I would quote the Union of Concerned Scientists:
The IPCC’s technical reports derive their credibility principally from an extensive, transparent, and iterative peer review process that, as mentioned above, is considered far more exhaustive than that associated with a single peer-reviewed publication in a scientific journal. This is due to the number of reviewers, the breadth of their disciplinary backgrounds and scientific perspectives, and the inclusion of independent “review editors” who certify that all comments have been fairly considered and appropriately resolved by the authors.
Recursively, you would then have to support the credibility of UCS, which Wikipedia (which attempts to be neutral) calls a "nonprofit science advocacy organization".
answered 7 hours ago
Ben BolkerBen Bolker
4353 silver badges11 bronze badges
add a comment |
Very hard to say in general. A 600-page report could be 600 pages of garbage. Obviously a super-short report couldn't be very thorough, or contain very much detail/depth.
If someone said "I have here a 600-page scientific report: is it any good?" I would have no way to know.
If you want to make a claim for the credibility of IPCC reports specifically, I would quote the Union of Concerned Scientists:
The IPCC’s technical reports derive their credibility principally from an extensive, transparent, and iterative peer review process that, as mentioned above, is considered far more exhaustive than that associated with a single peer-reviewed publication in a scientific journal. This is due to the number of reviewers, the breadth of their disciplinary backgrounds and scientific perspectives, and the inclusion of independent “review editors” who certify that all comments have been fairly considered and appropriately resolved by the authors.
Recursively, you would then have to support the credibility of UCS, which Wikipedia (which attempts to be neutral) calls a "nonprofit science advocacy organization".
answered 7 hours ago
Ben BolkerBen Bolker
4353 silver badges11 bronze badges
Very hard to say in general. A 600-page report could be 600 pages of garbage. Obviously a super-short report couldn't be very thorough, or contain very much detail/depth.
If someone said "I have here a 600-page scientific report: is it any good?" I would have no way to know.
If you want to make a claim for the credibility of IPCC reports specifically, I would quote the Union of Concerned Scientists:
The IPCC’s technical reports derive their credibility principally from an extensive, transparent, and iterative peer review process that, as mentioned above, is considered far more exhaustive than that associated with a single peer-reviewed publication in a scientific journal. This is due to the number of reviewers, the breadth of their disciplinary backgrounds and scientific perspectives, and the inclusion of independent “review editors” who certify that all comments have been fairly considered and appropriately resolved by the authors.
Recursively, you would then have to support the credibility of UCS, which Wikipedia (which attempts to be neutral) calls a "nonprofit science advocacy organization".
answered 7 hours ago
Ben BolkerBen Bolker
4353 silver badges11 bronze badges
answered 7 hours ago
Ben BolkerBen Bolker
4353 silver badges11 bronze badges
answered 7 hours ago
Ben BolkerBen Bolker
4353 silver badges11 bronze badges
answered 7 hours ago
Ben BolkerBen Bolker
4353 silver badges11 bronze badges
4353 silver badges11 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
This depends on the field. In mathematics, a significant paper can be short or long, as can a lesser paper.
In the sciences, it would depend on how much needs to be said about methodology. A significant paper could, in theory, be written without saying much about methodology as long as it is fairly standard. But it would get longer if the methodology is novel and needs significant exposition.
I'd say, therefore, that in general, length is a poor indicator of quality. It is what is said, not how many words it takes to say it.
answered 7 hours ago
BuffyBuffy
78.2k21 gold badges240 silver badges348 bronze badges
add a comment |
This depends on the field. In mathematics, a significant paper can be short or long, as can a lesser paper.
In the sciences, it would depend on how much needs to be said about methodology. A significant paper could, in theory, be written without saying much about methodology as long as it is fairly standard. But it would get longer if the methodology is novel and needs significant exposition.
I'd say, therefore, that in general, length is a poor indicator of quality. It is what is said, not how many words it takes to say it.
answered 7 hours ago
BuffyBuffy
78.2k21 gold badges240 silver badges348 bronze badges
add a comment |
This depends on the field. In mathematics, a significant paper can be short or long, as can a lesser paper.
In the sciences, it would depend on how much needs to be said about methodology. A significant paper could, in theory, be written without saying much about methodology as long as it is fairly standard. But it would get longer if the methodology is novel and needs significant exposition.
I'd say, therefore, that in general, length is a poor indicator of quality. It is what is said, not how many words it takes to say it.
answered 7 hours ago
BuffyBuffy
78.2k21 gold badges240 silver badges348 bronze badges
This depends on the field. In mathematics, a significant paper can be short or long, as can a lesser paper.
In the sciences, it would depend on how much needs to be said about methodology. A significant paper could, in theory, be written without saying much about methodology as long as it is fairly standard. But it would get longer if the methodology is novel and needs significant exposition.
I'd say, therefore, that in general, length is a poor indicator of quality. It is what is said, not how many words it takes to say it.
answered 7 hours ago
BuffyBuffy
78.2k21 gold badges240 silver badges348 bronze badges
answered 7 hours ago
BuffyBuffy
78.2k21 gold badges240 silver badges348 bronze badges
answered 7 hours ago
BuffyBuffy
78.2k21 gold badges240 silver badges348 bronze badges
answered 7 hours ago
BuffyBuffy
78.2k21 gold badges240 silver badges348 bronze badges
78.2k21 gold badges240 silver badges348 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Academia Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f135001%2fdoes-the-length-of-a-scientific-report-imply-anything-about-credibility-or-thoro%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
There are several problems with this post. First, you assume policy documents are the same as peer reviewed scientific documents. They are not. Second, you appear to assume policy documents are peer reviewed. Most are not. Last, your question reads as a rant because the background has nothing to do with your question. If you were to delete your background, your question, might fit into the scope of this site, but it is largely opinion based.
– Richard Erickson
7 hours ago
I have updated my answer. There did not seem to be a clear distinction between the policy (which I am aware has no standard for rigor) and the report, which is a technical document. My question was about the Special Report specifically.
– isakbob
7 hours ago