I agree.
Except for the “this paper will be sad if you don’t read it” one, that one’s on point.
Comment on check it before you wreck it
Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.world 1 week agoCall me a downer if you want, but I think scientific papers should be above using clickbait titles. They should be dry, boring and technical so that there’s no doubt that a paper is popular because of its contents and not the personality of its writer.
Aqarius@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Septimaeus@infosec.pub 1 week ago
I mean, we’re not talking about mutually exclusive properties.
Whether a paper is more or less dry and whether it’s more or less accessible to newcomers is separate from the quality of the contribution.
You can have both.
CarbonBasedNPU@lemm.ee 1 week ago
When a scientific paper has one of those titles I assume it is bullshit until proven otherwise. I can not trust a paper that does not even trust itself to stand on its own merits.