In master study and in my compulsory military service period, I've read (or perused) many works addressed as breakthrough or outstanding performance or pathway to this field with absolute description stated. Take photoelectrochemical water splitting for instance, some works denoted Mn-doping through their method leads to awesome performance, and another state that they CVD P on hematite surface to eliminate surface Fe2+/Fe3+ pairs (while XPS still shows Fe2+ feature) with high photocurrent performance. Even reviewers of some journals request high performance only, or the work is not worth publishing.
Well, if so many works are breakthrough or with reproducible excellence, the world has already been changed. Isn't it? On the other side, we all understand that all present works are based on the past, don't we?
However, isn't the contribution of research teaching others what we discovered? We may find one way toward bright side while the other toward trap. Isn't addressing the path to traps to alert new comers essential to facilitate scientific progress? I'm not say that a paper full of failure worth publishing, but is the high performance an only standard for further reading of a text, or we shall appreciate some works have circumscribed performance but meanwhile exhibit featured functions or mechanism?
There are many studies revealed undiscovered portion of a seemed well-studied topic, right?
Look forward to feedback :)
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Academic Journals