[Sigmetrics] So-called scientists too lazy to perform background reading in libraries

[Nicholas Collin Paul de Glouceſter]

On September 21st, 2015, Obinna Ojemeni sent:
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"[. . .] it is usually advised that students exclude old literature |
|except when a trend or seminal approach is being taken.             |
|                                                                    |
|[. . .]                                                             |
|Old literature simply means outdated study which I find confusing.  |
|                                                                    |
|Obinna Ojemeni {M.Ed; M.Inf.Sc}                                     |
|[. . .]"                                                            |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|


Dear all:

Please do not be offended, but disregarding old literature because it
is old is not investigation. A physicist based in Spain truthfully
said years ago at a Spanish workshop on software called Geant:
"Newer does not mean better. Newer means newer."

Investigation is investigation. Deliberately not consulting old
investigations is conniving instead of investigation. Ignoring
something because it is old is not the same as dismissing it because
it is discredited or irrelevant or even outdated. Much of the `recent´
main work relied on by everybody in one field in which I work is from
the 1960´s. By the way, a homework question: when was the first paper
on Impact Factors published, and are most newer papers in such a field
really more important (or even as important) as this paper?

|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"-----Original Message-----                                         |
|From: "Pikas, Christina  K." <Christina.Pikas at jhuapl.edu>           |
|[. . .]                                                             |
|Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 16:54:12                                     |
|[. . .]                                                             |
|                                                                    |
|Hm. Google Scholar has found scientists are citing *older* documents|
|(http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.0275) and "growing impact of non-elite   |
|journals" (http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.0275), possibly because more   |
|archives are available online due to extensive scanning             |
|efforts. This is research done (written up) in 2014. There has been |
|a lot of scanning since 2008."                                      |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|

A study restricted to 1990-2013 (
  HTTP://Arxiv.org/abs/1411.0275 
) does not include old articles. As part of investigation which I was
hired to do, I read research from for example more than one hundred
years earlier. One of the libraries never has more than two scientists
in it (despite having more than two rooms).

I was the only scientist who was accessing (e.g. scanning) old papers
in another of the libraries when this library was closed (e.g. when
librarians were eating lunches; at nights; and during weekend days)
every time I worked there when a librarian locked me in (because I
did not want to depart because there was a lot of work remaining).

Perhaps the quotation "growing impact of non-elite
journals" was from a different work than
  HTTP://Arxiv.org/abs/1411.0275
but Dr. Pikas showed the URL
  HTTP://Arxiv.org/abs/1411.0275
twice.

Regards,
Nicholas Collin Paul de Gloucester