[R] Do some authors conscientiously add up more mathematics than needed to make the paper "look" more groundbreaking?

Inquation@alien.topB to Machine Learning@academy.gardenEnglish · 10 months ago

I’ve noticed a trend recently of authors adding more formalism than needed in some instances (e.g. a diagram/ image would have done the job fine).

Is this such a thing as adding more mathematics than needed to make the paper look better or perhaps it’s just constrained by the publisher (whatever format the paper must stick to in order to get published)?

You must log in or register to comment.

Chat

Machine Learning@academy.garden

machinelearning@academy.garden

Create a post

You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !machinelearning@academy.garden

Community Rules:

Be nice. No offensive behavior, insults or attacks: we encourage a diverse community in which members feel safe and have a voice.
Make your post clear and comprehensive: posts that lack insight or effort will be removed. (ex: questions which are easily googled)
Beginner or career related questions go elsewhere. This community is focused in discussion of research and new projects that advance the state-of-the-art.
Limit self-promotion. Comments and posts should be first and foremost about topics of interest to ML observers and practitioners. Limited self-promotion is tolerated, but the sub is not here as merely a source for free advertisement. Such posts will be removed at the discretion of the mods.

Visibility: Public

This community can be federated to other instances and be posted/commented in by their users.

1 user / day
1 user / week
1 user / month
1 user / 6 months
1 local subscriber
1 subscriber
786 Posts
3.03K Comments
Modlog

mods:
communick@academy.garden