If we are already there, let us remove the words “good” and “bad” from the scientific literature in almost all cases. Science is not a place to judge values. Judgments, of course. Opinions, observations and speculations are correct if they are labeled as such. (“We believe..” is a completely legitimate way to start a sentence if you have to tell the reader that you don`t know something safely.) Your data corresponds to something or does not match. It corresponds to the simulation, in the estimated uncertainty, or it does not. It matches Dr. X`s prediction [quote goes here] in the 5%, or he doesn`t. None of us know what you think is a good deal or why, until you give us a number that we can replicate or understand. Is your data “qualitative” because the peaks are more or less coming and the slope is about the same? I might fade a bit if the “good deal” is somehow linked to the word “qualitative.” We all agree that Mr. Ross should resign. Let`s be honest, these phrases have no meaning and, in my opinion, have no place in the scientific literature. I used them in papers before I realized they have no value.
If the deal is good, tell us how much: use a number, rms, percentage, etc. The “good concordance” of one researcher is the “failed convergence” of another. Is your approval good for a picometer? or simply because it`s better than the mistakes you saw when you collected the first data? If you use these phrases, don`t do as good a job as you could. I went there and used that word well, but only because I ask you all to do a good job. I cannot be quantitative. The Council agrees with government policy. These results coincide with our earlier conclusions. .
Индекс слова: 1-300, 301-600, 601-900, Больше. Результатов: 33. Точных совпадений: 33. Затраченное время: 125 мс. . . .