There are many various critiques of "C,A". Some better than others. But one critique that comes often is brevity of conclusions.
That might have been a mistake but it has to do with my aversion to conclusions.
That might have been a mistake but it has to do with my aversion to conclusions.
I think that if you have read something carefully, you must have figured out what the author's point is and whether you agree or not. Why repeat it? I thus often do not read conclusions at all: they are repetitive & *superficial*.)
Classical books almost never had them.
Classical books almost never had them.
For the same reason I am allergic to robustness checks (RC) in papers. They should be published only on-line or as annex. You know, when reading a published paper, that RC section is not going to overturn the results. It is a super boring section.
Which is of interest only for people who might write the paper on exactly the same topic or for some reason want to find all the details. For others, it provides nothing new.
(If you do not believe this try submitting a paper whose main results are then overturned in RC, and see how far you get.)
@threadreaderapp unroll
