This paper is very good, has researched the subject and gives many important references along with presenting equations from those references. It is basically a computer calculation paper and somethings in those papers errors occur.
That important information should be shared with the community of researchers, and explaining clearly how results are changing. Also, it will be useful if other researchers or laboratories around the world find the error in that calculation, I mean repeating the calculation again and again.
This is a simple case of data defect. No matter how good are the literature review, no matter how good the writing may be, no matter how interesting the subject may be.... if there are errors in the calculation, it is a no good paper; therefore, is useless to the research community. To intentionally publish a paper with known erroneous calculation is misleading.
If the error leads to a new discovery, that is worth publishing. There had been at least one such a case. A young professor in India made a error in his calculation in a lecture; he went back to review the note and the error leads to a new discovery. This new discovery was worthy of publication. No one wanted to publish the paper, except one young editor in Switzerland took one and agreed to publish it as co-author. That co-author and editor was Albert Einstein. Today, we referred to that discovery from error as the Bose-Einstein condensate equation.
The case presented here stands in a different light. Here, the error does not lead to any new discovery. It proves good writing skill of the author, but not the research itself is of poor quality due to erroneous calculation.
LINK:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_condensate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyendra_Nath_Bose
It is not my paper. but one that was recommended to me. I know that someone can publish a correction. However, this paper is so good that I think if it was published in corrected form it would be a classical paper.
If not published, correct the error and publish the corrected version.
I also think, Insights of what not to do/common mistakes that could arise may be got from the current paper and published too.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Papers