Understanding Research Papers

A brief introduction to typical phrases used in publications by research scholars

They write

They mean

   
It has long been known that... I haven't bothered to look up the reference
   
...of great theoretical and practical importance  ...interesting to me
   
While it has not been possible to provide definite answers to these questions... The experiments didn't work out, but I figured I could at least get a publication out of it...
   
The W-Pb system was chosen as especially suitable to show the predicted behavior... The fellow in the next lab had some already made up
   
High purity... Composition unknown except for exaggerated claims of the supplier
Very high purity...
Extremely high purity...
Super-purity...
Spectroscopically pure...
   
A fiducial reference line... A scratch
   
Three of the samples were chosen for detailed study... The results of the others didn't make sense and were ignored...
   
...handled with extreme care during the experiments ...not dropped on the floor
   
Typical results are shown... The best results are shown...
   
Although some detail has been lost in reproduction, it is clear from the original micrograph It is impossible to tell from the micrograph
   
Presumably at longer times... I didn't take the time to find out
   
The agreement with the predicted curve is:  
excellent fair
good poor
satisfactory doubtful
fair imaginary
...as good as could be expected non-existent
   
These results will be reported at a later date I might get around to this sometime
   
The most reliable values are those of Jones He was a student of mine
   
It is suggested that... I think...
It is believed that...
It may be that...
   
It is generally believed that... I have such a good objection to this answer that I shall now raise it
   
It is clear that much additional work will be required before a complete understanding... I don't understand it
   
Unfortunately, a quantitative theory to account for these effects has not been formulated Neither does anybody else
   
Correct within an order of magnitude Wrong
   
It is hoped that this work will stimulate further work in the field This paper isn't very good but neither are any of the others on this miserable subject
   
Thanks are due to Joe Glotz for assistance with the experiments and to John Doe for valuable discussions Glotz did the work and Doe explained what it meant