Original poster: Jim Lux <jimlux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> At 03:46 PM 2/10/2007, you wrote:
Original poster: westland <westland@xxxxxx>Soljacic has stated in interviews that Tesla's work is what got him started on this line of research ... Soljacic is Serbian and has, I guess, a nationalistic interest in continuing Tesla's work. I suspect that any references of old research in a submitted research paper (based on my own experience) would have to be very brief ... just a citation ... as most journals have page limits, or at least the editors try to limit the copy to what work was done by the researcher, assuming that readers can dig up the referenced articles if they are interested in the background research.
Yes but reviewers (and I've reviewed my share of papers) often go and look up the reference (if they don't happen to be familiar with it, or have it lying on their desk), if only for curiosity.. And if the cited source doesn't match what the paper is claiming, you write an appropriate comment. {Wouldn't it be better to cite XYZ's paper from ABC in 19??, as XYZ seems to be a more fundamental/better explanation/etc)
As a paper writer, I've struggled for years to find a way to reference a paper by Lord Rayleigh (just because I thought it would be cool to reference a fundamental paper from the 19th century), or any of the other 18th and 19th century greats (Paschen, Maxwell, etc.) in a meaningful context. Haven't hit it yet. (I've cited Paschen a couple of times in internal reports.. but the standard of review is fairly loose..)
Jim