Call me a downer if you want, but I think scientific papers should be above using clickbait titles. Scientific papers should be dry, boring and technical so that there’s no doubt that a paper is popular because of its content and not the personality of its writer.
When a scientific paper has one of those titles I assume it is bullshit until proven otherwise. I can not trust a paper that does not even trust itself to stand on its own merits.
Call me a downer if you want, but I think scientific papers should be above using clickbait titles. Scientific papers should be dry, boring and technical so that there’s no doubt that a paper is popular because of its content and not the personality of its writer.
When a scientific paper has one of those titles I assume it is bullshit until proven otherwise. I can not trust a paper that does not even trust itself to stand on its own merits.
I agree.
Except for the “this paper will be sad if you don’t read it” one, that one’s on point.
I mean, we’re not talking about mutually exclusive properties.
Whether a paper is more or less dry and whether it’s more or less accessible to newcomers is separate from the quality of the contribution.
You can have both.