(C) BoingBoing
This story was originally published by BoingBoing and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .
Decoding scientific papers: 1957 guide to what researchers mean [1]
['Mark Frauenfelder']
Date: 2025-09-08
General Electric researcher C. D. Graham wrote the following Glossary for Research Reports in a 1957 issue of Metal Progress. Thanks are due to The Science Magpie for assistance with the post and to Futility Closet for valuable discussions.
It has long been known that… I haven't bothered to look up the original reference
… of great theoretical and practical importance … interesting to me
While it has not been possible to provide definite answers to these questions … The experiments didn't work out, but I figured I could at least get a publication out of it
The W-Pb system was chosen as especially suitable to show the predicted behaviour … The fellow in the next lab had some already made up
High-purity …
Very high purity …
Extremely high purity …
Super-purity …
Spectroscopically pure … Composition unknown except for the exaggerated claims of the supplier
A fiducial reference line … A scratch
Three of the samples were chosen for detailed study … The results on the others didn't make sense and were ignored
… accidentally strained during mounting … dropped on the floor
… handled with extreme care throughout the experiments … not dropped on the floor
Typical results are shown … The best results are shown
Although some detail has been lost in reproduction, it is clear from the original micrograph that … It is impossible to tell from the micrograph
Presumably at longer times … I didn't take time to find out
The agreement with the predicted curve is excellent … fair
… good … poor
… satisfactory … doubtful
… fair … imaginary
… as good as could be expected … non-existent
These results will be reported at a later date I might possibly get around to this sometime
The most reliable values are those of Jones He was a student of mine
It is suggested that …
It is believed that …
It may be that … I think
It is generally believed that … A couple of other guys think so too
It might be argued that … I have such a good answer to this objection that I shall now raise it
It is clear that much additional work will be required before a complete understanding … I don't understand it
Unfortunately, a quantitative theory to account for these effects has not been formulated Neither does anybody else
Correct within an order of magnitude Wrong
It is to be hoped that this work will stimulate further work in the field This paper isn't very good, but neither are any of the others in this miserable subject
Thanks are due to Joe Glotz for assistance with the experiments and to John Doe for valuable discussions Glotz did the work and Doe explained what it meant
Previously:
• Scientist's cat discovers a new virus, AGAIN
[END]
---
[1] Url:
https://boingboing.net/2025/09/08/decoding-scientific-papers-1957-guide-to-what-researchers-mean.html
Published and (C) by BoingBoing
Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0.
via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/boingboing/
