This one was in French, but it deserves translation in English : about fair citation in scientific articles

A friend who submits a manuscript to me quotes popular books in an academic text. I point out to him that the authors he quotes are compilers, moreover, but my friend replies that the texts he quotes are those from which he has taken the information he used for his own text, and that it is therefore only fair to quote these people.

What can we conclude? What can we do?



Yes, it is fair, but what about good practice?

First of all, let us observe that it is justice to quote these people... but injustice not to quote those who are at the origin of the works cited by the compilers.

And insofar as lazy scientists -let's say "fast", to be charitable- quote much more the "reviews", synthesis, compilation, works of popularization than the original works, we end up having only the compilers quoted, which is perfectly abnormal.
Injustice is established... all the more so since there is also an injustice in giving credit to compilers for works they did not do. For what are we quoting: the compilers' texts, or the compiled data? This is the first question that should have been asked, and the answer shows that the original works must be cited.

On the other hand, it is not a good practice to start from texts - especially compilations - when they are not perfectly recent, and not to show everyone that one is making one's bibliography, but especially because recent works make useful scientific revisions: this is the state of the art, and any older work, which would have been revised, should therefore not be cited.

All the more so since recent articles, which appear more often than reviews, syntheses or compilations, are published more frequently, and on more precise points. Moreover, if these articles are good, they will have made a tight bibliographical exploration, and which will have more acuity than those of the compilations.

Hence the conclusion: when one cites works, one must directly cite the authors of these works, and the authors of revisions of these results. Not the intermediate texts, and even less the compilations!

But obviously, this requires a lot of work, whereas my friend was lazily relying on reviews, syntheses, compilations... which avoided all the research.

But I end charitable: it was probably less laziness than ignorance of the rules of good scientific practice.




References (only some ;-))

A quote that served me well: Penders B (2018) Ten simple rules for responsible referencing. PLoS Comput Biol 14(4):e1006036. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006036

An important article, because it says that quoting is still to have a critical eye: Nature Genetics. Neutral citation is poor scholarship. Nature Genetics. 2017; 49:1559. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.3989 PMID: 29074946

A "best practice" article: Carol Anne Meyer, Reference accuracy: best practices for making the links, The Journal of Electronic Publishing, 11(2), 2008, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0011.206


(text still in progress)

Some explanations about science, technology, molecular gastronomy, food pairing (bad theory), honesty in general

I was recently invited in a programme mixing science and... I don't understand exactly what, but it included "food pairing". 

I am publishing again and again that the theory of food pairing is not scientific, and I also observe that this "theory" is promoted by people selling advices to chefs, often trying to convince that there is science behind.
You will see why I am strongly opposed to this way of doing on other posts of this blog, but it's enough to know that "good" means "beautiful to eat", and this is not a question of technique, but of art... and art escapes the rules : the Diabolus in musica is appreciated today ; no science about that. 

 

So that I don't  want to participate to something where this wrong theory is promoted.

By the way, in the proposed programme, I could see that there is question of "aromas", and frequently, there is a confusion between aromas and odors.

But more generally, I see too often people speaking of science, when indeed they are doing technology or technique, and this is not fair. 

Engineers are engineers, technologists are technologists, technicians are technicians, and scientists are scientists. All these people are different, with different goals and different methods.

Another point: since the creation of molecular gastronomy, by me and Nicholas Kurti, there has been many people

- confusing molecular gastronomy and molecular cooking/ molecular cuisine (and this is bad for the public)

- confusing science and technology (and this is bad for students)

- confusing everything about "science and cooking" (and this is bad for everybody

- giving ( or trying to give) new names to the science called molecular and physical gastronomy (and this not very honest)

 

Here are some explanations : 

1. molecular and physical gastronomy is sometimes named " molecular gastronomy" for short ; it is a scientific activity, done in laboratories, by chemists or physicists, or biologists. This is science, not technology, and not technique

2. molecular cooking is the technique of cooking with modern tools that were transferred from laboratories to kitchens (thermocirculators, liquid nitrogen, siphons, pumps, centrifuge, rotary evaportaors...)

3. molecular cuisine is a culinary trend (chefs using molecular cooking for making new kind of dishes)

4. science (sciences of nature) is an activity of "looking for the mechanisms of phenomena using a specific method using experiments and calculation"; it has nothing to do with technique and technology

5. technique means "to do something". For example, cooking includes a technical component

6. technology means using the results of science for improving technique

7. and finally, there is art, and one of my book explains well that cooking includes a social component, an art component, a technical component.

 

By the way, I hope that my friends know about "note by note cooking"? This IS the future, the next new technique, and already some "note by note cuisine" is appearing all over the world.