Etiquette Question

[oldrover]

I have a slight concern about what's OK and what's not in a paper. I'm in the position where I (we) have evidence which is fairly game changing in our own little area, but there's been another paper published recently which thought the same thing. Trouble is the other paper is bluntly awful. Quite honestly every point raised is easily disproved, it's genuinely unbelievable. I'd ignore it but the thing is, it presents evidence which I have to refute in order to adequately present mine.

I'm new to this obviously and I just don't know how to proceed for the best. Kill all of it, which takes about 800 words, which seems excessive in an 8,000 word piece that covers a lot of ground. Also it might come across as a bit gleeful. Strangle the salient points, but there aren't any so I can't get a handle on it. Disprove some of it, but then that doesn't seem adequate somehow. I don't know, but I don't want to come across like Father Ted making his Golden Cleric speech. Any advice gratefully taken.

 

[Naughty_Felid]

What's the politics? What are the likely ramifications? Who are you going to piss off and what is their influence? Who can u trust to ask advice? What's in it for you?

Good that u are thinking about this.

 

[oldrover]

Politics are unknown, but I did have an experience last year when I informed a curator of how one of their exhibits had been listed and they seemed fairly miffed. Ramifications are that I might look like I'm using the situation as a platform to throw bricks from, or appear unprofessional. Influence is hard to say but it's a tiny little pond. I doubt they have any real gravity and we're definitely not compatible anyway. I'm delighted to fall out with them but I don't want to come across as an angry crank. I thought I'd ask advice here to be honest. There's a lot of knowledge here about a lot of things. In it for me? I suppose the satisfaction of knowing you're getting the facts straight.

 

[EnolaGaia]

It's difficult to offer a one-size-fits-all answer to this sort of situation, but here's how I'd prioritize the response(s).

You definitely need to mention the other paper just to demonstrate you're "up to date." No question about this.

Refuting any of the other paper's claims / conclusions should not detract from, nor divert, your own exposition of the subject matter.

Determine which of the other paper's claims / conclusions overlap with and / or conflict directly with your own claims / conclusions. For each overlap with no conflict, you need not mention anything. For each direct conflict, you should state (and, as appropriate, explain / substantiate) your own position on the given point or issue as concisely as possible.

There's no need to belabor rejection of the other paper's conflicting position on a given point / issue. Depending on the context you may be able to simply indicate disagreement (e.g., "In contrast, we see it as ...") and proceed to elucidate your own position. If the other paper's point / conclusion cannot be so simply bypassed, you'll need to balance criticism of the others' work versus explanation of your own.

This balancing can be tricky. There's no globally general advice except to keep discussion of the other work to a minimum and make sure your exposition of your competing viewpoint is compelling.

 

[oldrover]

Yes, I do take that on board. It's difficult sometimes to keep perspective on that you're doing what you're doing not critiquing someone else's work. I suppose you get into a bit of a 'position' sometimes. Thanks.

 

[maximus otter]

Kill them and take their women. Burn their village, then strew salt ankle-deep over its site...

Sorry, what was the question again?

maximus otter

 

[Yithian]

I'd advise against a point-by-point rebuttal even if every claim is demonstrably false. It is a) unnecessary and b) looks petty.

Undermine the central claims on which the main argument rests and the whole edifice collapses, details and all.

Grinding the rubble to dust is pointless and eats into your word count.

 

[Ghost In The Machine]

I have a slight concern about what's OK and what's not in a paper. I'm in the position where I (we) have evidence which is fairly game changing in our own little area, but there's been another paper published recently which thought the same thing. Trouble is the other paper is bluntly awful. Quite honestly every point raised is easily disproved, it's genuinely unbelievable. I'd ignore it but the thing is, it presents evidence which I have to refute in order to adequately present mine.

I'm new to this obviously and I just don't know how to proceed for the best. Kill all of it, which takes about 800 words, which seems excessive in an 8,000 word piece that covers a lot of ground. Also it might come across as a bit gleeful. Strangle the salient points, but there aren't any so I can't get a handle on it. Disprove some of it, but then that doesn't seem adequate somehow. I don't know, but I don't want to come across like Father Ted making his Golden Cleric speech. Any advice gratefully taken.

Just hit a calm, forensic tone but be laserlike and skewer them. But not in great depth just salient points?

The fact you’re sensitive about it means you’ll have the requisite amount of restraint.

 

[Trevp666]

Can't you line up someone more (lets say) 'higher ranking' to do the work of dismissing the other paper, thereby taking the flak for any fallout afterwards, then you can sidle in while that storm is raging with your own. more accurate paper, and take some glory for getting it right?

 

[oldrover]

Thank you all, all good advice. Petty is the perfect word for how it was starting to feel. It just felt wrong.

What I've done is cut the whole thing in half, it was too unwieldy. Identified two points which determine whether their paper could have a bearing on mine, refuted them. Thank you all for your input it really has helped.