| Science desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < January 28 | << Dec | January | Feb >> | January 30 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
January 29 Information
A few years ago, a paper was published in a pretty prestigious journal that took a scathing dig at the publish-or-perish culture in science and the resulting often-useless research. In their field, there was a proliferation of little-novel papers on generating composites of two or more elements, subjecting them to a set of standard tests, and reporting the results. The authors explained how and why such an approach had nothing to offer except the publication of C(118,2) + C(118,3) + ... papers! I recall that the paper attracted immense attention from pop media and probably, had a title with the f-word.
Now that I have forgotten all recognizable details about the paper (journal/author/field), what was it? TrangaBellam ( talk) 14:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Probably in a journal of American Chemical Society!
TrangaBellam (
talk)
14:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- @
TrangaBellam I used Google Scholar to look for a few of the keywords in your question. I don't think I found the exact paper you had in mind but
this one is open-access and has lots of references. You could play around in Scholar to come up with other possibilities.
Mike Turnbull (
talk)
15:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- I know of that but failed to retrieve the paper. This is far from the paper, I have in mind.
TrangaBellam (
talk)
15:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Resolved courtesy a colleague from another department.
- The article is Wang, Lu; Sofer, Zdenek; Pumera, Martin (2020-01-28).
"Will Any Crap We Put into Graphene Increase Its Electrocatalytic Effect?". ACS Nano. 14 (1): 21–25.
doi:
10.1021/acsnano.9b00184.
ISSN
1936-0851.
TrangaBellam (
talk)
17:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- These guys are hilarious! They actually used "crap" ( guano) in their sarcasmfest! Clarityfiend ( talk) 00:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- I know of that but failed to retrieve the paper. This is far from the paper, I have in mind.
TrangaBellam (
talk)
15:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- @
TrangaBellam I used Google Scholar to look for a few of the keywords in your question. I don't think I found the exact paper you had in mind but
this one is open-access and has lots of references. You could play around in Scholar to come up with other possibilities.
Mike Turnbull (
talk)
15:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
| Science desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < January 28 | << Dec | January | Feb >> | January 30 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
January 29 Information
A few years ago, a paper was published in a pretty prestigious journal that took a scathing dig at the publish-or-perish culture in science and the resulting often-useless research. In their field, there was a proliferation of little-novel papers on generating composites of two or more elements, subjecting them to a set of standard tests, and reporting the results. The authors explained how and why such an approach had nothing to offer except the publication of C(118,2) + C(118,3) + ... papers! I recall that the paper attracted immense attention from pop media and probably, had a title with the f-word.
Now that I have forgotten all recognizable details about the paper (journal/author/field), what was it? TrangaBellam ( talk) 14:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Probably in a journal of American Chemical Society!
TrangaBellam (
talk)
14:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- @
TrangaBellam I used Google Scholar to look for a few of the keywords in your question. I don't think I found the exact paper you had in mind but
this one is open-access and has lots of references. You could play around in Scholar to come up with other possibilities.
Mike Turnbull (
talk)
15:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- I know of that but failed to retrieve the paper. This is far from the paper, I have in mind.
TrangaBellam (
talk)
15:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Resolved courtesy a colleague from another department.
- The article is Wang, Lu; Sofer, Zdenek; Pumera, Martin (2020-01-28).
"Will Any Crap We Put into Graphene Increase Its Electrocatalytic Effect?". ACS Nano. 14 (1): 21–25.
doi:
10.1021/acsnano.9b00184.
ISSN
1936-0851.
TrangaBellam (
talk)
17:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- These guys are hilarious! They actually used "crap" ( guano) in their sarcasmfest! Clarityfiend ( talk) 00:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- I know of that but failed to retrieve the paper. This is far from the paper, I have in mind.
TrangaBellam (
talk)
15:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- @
TrangaBellam I used Google Scholar to look for a few of the keywords in your question. I don't think I found the exact paper you had in mind but
this one is open-access and has lots of references. You could play around in Scholar to come up with other possibilities.
Mike Turnbull (
talk)
15:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)