Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

6
  • 4
    I can't comment about the CS ones but, yes, articles in Phys. Rev. assume you are active in the field or willing to put in the time to come up to speed (which is slow the first time, but you get faster at it). But I will say I enjoyed those long footnote trails wandering around the stacks in the library finding things (journals on paper then, not electronics).
    – Jon Custer
    Commented Jan 10 at 14:50
  • 1
    I subscribe to Jon's comment. As a physicist currently working with AI, I think CS papers are a little verbose...
    – The Doctor
    Commented Jan 10 at 14:58
  • @JonCuster Oh wow, I hadn't even considered following the footnotes on actual paperback journals. That sounds like very long weekdays ;) I could confidently say that I too am enjoying the footnote trails. I just found the dramatic differences between fields quite intriguing.
    – 이희원
    Commented Jan 10 at 14:59
  • 4
    One should not underestimate just how many other useful articles I found while paging through the thick book of bound journals looking up something else. Just don't have that experience anymore.
    – Jon Custer
    Commented Jan 10 at 15:01
  • 3
    As an aside, my favorite find was when I went to get some of the original Rutherford, Geiger, and Marsden article on alpha scattering (I was doing Rutherford Backscattering Spectrometry at the time). While flipping through the bound tome this long color plate of hummingbird wings unfolded itself. It was an illustration from one of Rayleigh's articles on iridescent colors.
    – Jon Custer
    Commented Jan 10 at 16:38