14th September 2016, 08:11 AM
Luckily I seem to have passed the 'peer-reviewed journal' crap hurdle years ago (some of the 'anonymous' reviewer comments are sometimes a bit odd, but take them or leave them). I like doing stuff from original sources, some of the academic stuff is awfully 3rd hand - especially when they keep repeating the same wrong references etc - had a beauty recently where someone had lifted a reference from one of Jackie McKinley's papers, itself referencing an endnote in something, but had gone to the wrong endnote and quoted a bit of Latin which didn't say at all what they thought it did, from the wrong classical text. Always best to check the original :face-approve:
Personally I always try to add something to what's already known, that's what background and discussion sections are for. Always summarise existing published syntheses but add extra examples from grey lit/local knowledge where applicable, that way we can keep the accumulated rolling total knowledge bundled-up for the next proper synthesis. Anyway, always cool to use new examples, makes it look like you actually did some work for the money
Personally I always try to add something to what's already known, that's what background and discussion sections are for. Always summarise existing published syntheses but add extra examples from grey lit/local knowledge where applicable, that way we can keep the accumulated rolling total knowledge bundled-up for the next proper synthesis. Anyway, always cool to use new examples, makes it look like you actually did some work for the money