On reading the title I guessed that it was in the spirit of the paper Will Any Crap We Put into Graphene Increase Its Electrocatalytic Effect?, that is, being somewhat dismissive of (or even mocking) similar research. If it’s not the intention it may be worth it to change the title to avoid that impression.
From the conclusion of said article: “Because doping graphene with cheap bird droppings produces more electrocatalytic materials than many complex multielemental doping procedures, we do not see any justification for such efforts, and we believe that researchers should focus their energy on other research directions.”
I think the critique generalizes if it’s a little more focused. If a huge number of papers arose that just demonstrated that EM arose in a bunch of settings that varied superficially without a clear theory of why, this post would be a good critique of that phenomenon.
On reading the title I guessed that it was in the spirit of the paper Will Any Crap We Put into Graphene Increase Its Electrocatalytic Effect?, that is, being somewhat dismissive of (or even mocking) similar research. If it’s not the intention it may be worth it to change the title to avoid that impression.
From the conclusion of said article: “Because doping graphene with cheap bird droppings produces more electrocatalytic materials than many complex multielemental doping procedures, we do not see any justification for such efforts, and we believe that researchers should focus their energy on other research directions.”
I think the critique generalizes if it’s a little more focused. If a huge number of papers arose that just demonstrated that EM arose in a bunch of settings that varied superficially without a clear theory of why, this post would be a good critique of that phenomenon.