Discussion Overview
The discussion revolves around the concept of academic ghost writers, particularly in the context of writing and publishing academic papers. Participants explore the implications of using such services, the quality of work produced, and the standards required for publication in academic journals, especially in relation to philosophical arguments like the fine tuning argument and naturalism.
Discussion Character
- Debate/contested
- Conceptual clarification
- Exploratory
Main Points Raised
- One participant questions the existence of academic ghost writers, suggesting that if they do exist, their work is likely of poor quality.
- Another participant notes that the paper in question seems more philosophical than scientific, implying that improved writing may not address the underlying issues of the argument.
- There is a suggestion that the structure of the paper may need improvement, with a call for "filler" content to enhance context for publication standards.
- A participant proposes that seeking a coauthor or advice from qualified individuals could be beneficial for improving the paper's quality.
- Concerns are raised about the ethical implications of using ghost writers, including issues of credit and plagiarism.
- One participant humorously references an experience with an anonymous referee, suggesting that personal connections can influence academic feedback.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants express differing views on the existence and quality of academic ghost writers, with some questioning their validity and others discussing the potential need for collaboration to enhance academic work. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the ethical considerations and practical implications of using such services.
Contextual Notes
There are limitations in the discussion regarding the assumptions about what constitutes a publishable standard and the specific requirements of physics journals versus philosophical discourse.