Juspreet Singh Sandhu

freegaussians.bsky.social

07 Oktober 2026 07:17

So, whenever I start getting to a point where I have sufficient progress on my papers for the main project, I can cite this work and explain why it is mediocre *and* poorly written (in addition to violating academic ethics) but what a waste of our time and energy. And as you said - what a bummer!

Juspreet Singh Sandhu

freegaussians.bsky.social

07 Oktober 2026 07:17

For instance, for this TAP-specific paper of this person building on Boursier’s work, all it does is one (maybe) two helpful computations that are nice to know. But, in terms of the systematic (and somewhat open-ended) theory-building project I have been working on, it doesn’t help.

Juspreet Singh Sandhu

freegaussians.bsky.social

07 Oktober 2026 07:17

Does not cite the relevant prior work in a way that makes the novelty clear, and often redoes known computations clearly. It obfuscates the actual contribution without providing a developmental introduction, and does not need 100 pages. But, it gets attention and wastes our energy.

Juspreet Singh Sandhu

freegaussians.bsky.social

07 Oktober 2026 07:17

@yihanzhang.bsky.social - We should have a call and discuss. The issue is that this is basically low-quality work (and the unfortunate part is one has to waste energy to read and understand why). For instance, it is incremental on top of Boursier’s work, has some unnecessary standard computations

Sam Power

spmontecarlo.bsky.social

22 September 2026 09:56

(I will concede that at least part of the interest is that I saw arxiv.org/abs/2607.04388 - where an effort seems to have been made, at least - and has a cute construction in it, which I could vaguely understand already)