Manuscripts that explain a hypothesis and methodology and experiment followed by results and interpretations are the mainstream culture. But is it absolutely necessary to conduct an experiment with hard methodology and traditional statistical scrutiny to know something new and valuable. To me this should not be the case. If the above things are not absolutely necessary, why don't we come across papers (apart from reviews, perspectives, meta-analyses etc) that just explain a new concept and add to our knowledge without conducting a real experiment. My focus here is medical, biological and clinical sciences. I am aware physics and mathematics must have such papers in vogue.

More Muneeb Faiq's questions See All
Similar questions and discussions