Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Top-level
Raghav Agrawal

What this reveals is that a field's threshold for innovation today is quite literally in the hands and mind of the field's journal editors.

So whole field can suffer with narrow minded unimaginative editors.

mastodon.social/@impactology/1

4 comments
Daniel Marks

@impactology Many subfields and journals have an extremely narrow scope, tightly regulated terminology, and few who make governing editorial decisions. It's extremely common to find two different fields studying the exact same thing, but it sounds completely different the way they describe it, but both insisting that they are absolutely separate. Frequently researchers dust off an old idea, give it a new name and slightly different spin, and market it as innovation.

abaybas

@impactology Not defending the journals here, but doesn't this demonstrate that ideas can succeed even if they don't get recognized by the field experts?

Michael Westergaard
No, it reveals that the reviewers were aware of prior art. The WWW was not academically a breakthru. It was repurposing ideas of hypertext (invented in 1945 by Bush and implemented shortly before and demonstrated as part of the Mother of all Demos by Engelbart in 1968).

Bernes-Lee made one (of two, gopher was contemporary and developed independently of the web) successful technical implementation that came at the right to take off commercially.

The would be a poster or tool demo at respectable conferences or a paper at a workshop.
No, it reveals that the reviewers were aware of prior art. The WWW was not academically a breakthru. It was repurposing ideas of hypertext (invented in 1945 by Bush and implemented shortly before and demonstrated as part of the Mother of all Demos by Engelbart in 1968).
Go Up