Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
chconline

Researchers Show Parachutes Don't Work, But There's A Catch

Recommended Posts

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/12/22/679083038/researchers-show-parachutes-dont-work-but-there-s-a-catch

Quote

 

"It's a little bit of a parable, to say we have to look at the fine print, we have to understand the context in which research is designed and conducted to really properly interpret the results," Yeh says. Scientists often read just the conclusion of a study and then draw their own conclusions that are far more sweeping than are justified by the actual findings.

This is a real problem in science.

"I know that people often don't look detailed enough into what is being investigated to know how to interpret the results of a trial," says Cecile Janssens, an epidemiology professor at Emory University.

 

lol I can attest that this happens not just in medical journals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People will literally quote you out of context (or totally quote you incorrectly) to establish their own preconceived notions. 99% of peer reviewers don't check the cited sources anyway, unless the claim is outrageous and you know it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/27/2018 at 10:40 PM, chconline said:

People will literally quote you out of context (or totally quote you incorrectly) to establish their own preconceived notions. 99% of peer reviewers don't check the cited sources anyway, unless the claim is outrageous and you know it.

What do you mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Happened to one of my papers. The paper, "Medium and Short Wave RF Energy Harvester for Powering Wireless Sensor Networks" (https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/18/3/768/htm) that cited my works, "Radio Frequency Energy Harvesting and Data Rate Optimization in Wireless Information and Power Transfer Sensor Networks" (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7945489)

Note: The paper that cited mine is not an IEEE paper, it's MDPI which is not a Tier 1 source in the academic world. My paper is published in IEEE Sensors and appears in IEEExplore. Papers on IEEEXplore are pretty much the only papers in my field I consider citing in my works. The reason why I am using this as an example is because the way it's quoting is especially poor and easy to understand.

ZFpBYww.png

In this paper, they quoted that I used a broadcast power of 4W at 15M to achieve 5.5uW of harvested energy.

Let's look at what I actually did in my paper:

hOqiTwx.png

I used a 3W transmitter and placed it in a room 6.5 by 5.75m with approximately d=2m between the transmitter and the receiver. In the best-case 5 source scenario, the harvested energy is about 0.25J per sensor (Or 0.25W/sensor if you consider W=J/s) with 2 sensors. That is nowhere near their claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/1/2019 at 5:01 PM, chconline said:

Happened to one of my papers. The paper, "Medium and Short Wave RF Energy Harvester for Powering Wireless Sensor Networks" (https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/18/3/768/htm) that cited my works, "Radio Frequency Energy Harvesting and Data Rate Optimization in Wireless Information and Power Transfer Sensor Networks" (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7945489)

Note: The paper that cited mine is not an IEEE paper, it's MDPI which is not a Tier 1 source in the academic world. My paper is published in IEEE Sensors and appears in IEEExplore. Papers on IEEEXplore are pretty much the only papers in my field I consider citing in my works. The reason why I am using this as an example is because the way it's quoting is especially poor and easy to understand.

ZFpBYww.png

In this paper, they quoted that I used a broadcast power of 4W at 15M to achieve 5.5uW of harvested energy.

Let's look at what I actually did in my paper:

hOqiTwx.png

I used a 3W transmitter and placed it in a room 6.5 by 5.75m with approximately d=2m between the transmitter and the receiver. In the best-case 5 source scenario, the harvested energy is about 0.25J per sensor (Or 0.25W/sensor if you consider W=J/s) with 2 sensors. That is nowhere near their claim.

interesting read chc

i assume it happens to good papers too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, it does happen to some good papers as well. I've also seen some people cite my paper so well even I was impressed. I saw someone summarize my paper in a sentence that I could not have done better myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/1/2019 at 5:01 PM, chconline said:

Happened to one of my papers. The paper, "Medium and Short Wave RF Energy Harvester for Powering Wireless Sensor Networks" (https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/18/3/768/htm) that cited my works, "Radio Frequency Energy Harvesting and Data Rate Optimization in Wireless Information and Power Transfer Sensor Networks" (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7945489)

Note: The paper that cited mine is not an IEEE paper, it's MDPI which is not a Tier 1 source in the academic world. My paper is published in IEEE Sensors and appears in IEEExplore. Papers on IEEEXplore are pretty much the only papers in my field I consider citing in my works. The reason why I am using this as an example is because the way it's quoting is especially poor and easy to understand.

 

In this paper, they quoted that I used a broadcast power of 4W at 15M to achieve 5.5uW of harvested energy.

Let's look at what I actually did in my paper:

 

I used a 3W transmitter and placed it in a room 6.5 by 5.75m with approximately d=2m between the transmitter and the receiver. In the best-case 5 source scenario, the harvested energy is about 0.25J per sensor (Or 0.25W/sensor if you consider W=J/s) with 2 sensors. That is nowhere near their claim.

:lol: You can't make these things up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×