> Papers aren’t textbooks, the goal is to communicate what was done and what happened not inform the reader of some wider context.

And a literature review is part of what was done, always. If what you said were true, there would be no point in a literature review at all. Instead, every paper includes one because researchers understand it's an intrinsic part of research. That's what makes it research instead of just search: research is a systematic process that involves, in every definition of the process I've ever come across, a literature review. I challenge you to find an example of peer reviewed research that doesn't contain one.

Here’s a translation of a rather fun counterexample.

https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/232514/Einstein%20E=mc2%20(pp...

But, I don’t disagree that someone should keep up with the literature. Including it as part of a paper is what I disagree with.

It’s unlikely this paper was peer reviewed. The peer review process was much different in Einstein’s time. It wouldn’t pass for research today. I kind of thought we were talking about how research is conducted in modern times, not how they did it over 100 years ago.

If you want a more recent example. How about 1966 with the counter example of Euler’s Conjecture on Sums of Like Powers.

A direct search on the CDC 6600 yielded 27^5 + 84^5 + 110^5 + 133^5 = 144^5

as the smallest instance in which four fifth powers sum to a fifth power. This is a counterexample to a conjecture by Euler [1] that at least n nth powers are required to sum to an nth power, 1 > 2.

And that’s the paper. They could have gone into great detail about the program used etc, but it clearly communicates what was done and the results so why bother.

“I consulted a magic box and arrived at the answer” is precisely the kind of paper that is an example of search, and not research. I mean, they plainly stated that’s what they’ve done.

How would you go about redoing exactly what Lander and Parkin did? You can’t because they don’t really say. Isn’t this whole thread about a lack of reproducible studies resulting in fraud?

But anyway, I like what you’re doing here because you’re beginning to document why the modern peer review system was developed in the first place in the 70s. Sounds like a good topic for a research paper.

A counter example is a proof unto it’s self there is no need to derive it again, just verify the counter example is correct.

Many modern papers are of this form. If you have some specific data as recent enough to be valid I could provide one but I am not going to just pick a paper from 1990 and you say nope not recent enough.

There are many reasons to reproduce papers, it doesn’t matter if the author is unquestionably correct. One is to establish that they actually did what they said they did. What if the authors stole this result? It’s certainly happened before. If we don’t accept students divining solutions, why should we accept that from scholars?

Another is for posterity and for future generations. If I give the paper you cited to a student, they can be wowed at its brevity and impressed by its genius, but they learn nothing.

I get you’re trying to prove your point but all you’ve done is solidify my position in my mind that literature reviews are essential to good research. You’ve given me a great topic for my talk to our incoming class of Ph.D. students in a couple weeks, so thanks for that, I mean it. Cheers.

So you aren’t actually open to new information, that’s disappointing but unsurprising. I get your stance but again papers aren’t textbooks.

O well, there’s a reason science advances one retirement at a time.

Sheesh, I don’t think that was called for. Was a good discussion until that :/

Yea, I was going to delete it.

Just got annoyed you tried to weasel out of picking a date and tried to pretend you had won the argument.