Does the length of an IPCC Scientific report imply anything about credibility or thoroughness?r t1h c O s a0гv pNn w g Aәd
Background
In a question about the Green New Deal, I posted a comment to an answer that asserted the Green New Deal was not based in any science:
It's not a surprise that such a report [sic: read resolution] is lacking in science.
In context, his statement is referring to the Green New Deal itself, not the IPCC Special Report. In my comment, I mention that the resolution cites the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 ºC. The fact that that the Green New Deal does cite the IPCC report means that it is not utterly lacking in science (i.e. as opposed to citing nothing). While United States legislation does not have requirements for rigor, my question is about traits pertaining specifically to the special report.
With regard to the IPCC Special Report, I mention its page length:
It does include science. The whole resolution is premised on the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5C which is over 600 pages in full length. I was just curious about an omission of a detail.
My implicit assumption was that the longer the length of a peer reviewed IPCC report the higher its credibility. I am not referring to the Green New Deal; I know united states resolutions do not have any research standard.
That said, given the following comment, I am now questioning the assumption of length in relation to credibility:
Why is the length of that report relevant?
This comment is what lead me to ask...
Question
Does the length of a peer reviewed scientific report, in this case the IPCC Special Report, imply in any way that it is more credible or thorough in its results?
-
10There are several problems with this post. First, you assume policy documents are the same as peer reviewed scientific documents. They are not. Second, you appear to assume policy documents are peer reviewed. Most are not. Last, your question reads as a rant because the background has nothing to do with your question. If you were to delete your background, your question, might fit into the scope of this site, but it is largely opinion based. – Richard Erickson 17 hours ago
-
Only slightly related as these are Math papers, but still: paperpile.com/blog/shortest-papers – David 5 hours ago
-
1Please do not vote "opinion based" when the answer is obviously "no." If you don't like the question, use the downvote button. – Anonymous Physicist 4 hours ago
-
When you say "special report" and "scientific report" are you referring to the same document? The IPCC report you link? That's not clear – Chris H 20 mins ago
-
@Chris H Correct. "special report" and "scientific report" refer to the exact same IPCC report. I have updated my question appropriately. – isakbob 11 mins ago
5 Answers
Very hard to say in general. A 600-page report could be 600 pages of garbage. Obviously a super-short report couldn't be very thorough, or contain very much detail/depth.
If someone said "I have here a 600-page scientific report: is it any good?" I would have no way to know.
If you want to make a claim for the credibility of IPCC reports specifically, I would quote the Union of Concerned Scientists:
The IPCC’s technical reports derive their credibility principally from an extensive, transparent, and iterative peer review process that, as mentioned above, is considered far more exhaustive than that associated with a single peer-reviewed publication in a scientific journal. This is due to the number of reviewers, the breadth of their disciplinary backgrounds and scientific perspectives, and the inclusion of independent “review editors” who certify that all comments have been fairly considered and appropriately resolved by the authors.
Recursively, you would then have to support the credibility of UCS, which Wikipedia (which attempts to be neutral) calls a "nonprofit science advocacy organization".
This depends on the field. In mathematics, a significant paper can be short or long, as can a lesser paper.
In the sciences, it would depend on how much needs to be said about methodology. A significant paper could, in theory, be written without saying much about methodology as long as it is fairly standard. But it would get longer if the methodology is novel and needs significant exposition.
I'd say, therefore, that in general, length is a poor indicator of quality. It is what is said, not how many words it takes to say it.
Does the length of a peer reviewed scientific report imply in any way that it is more credible or thorough in its results?
No.
There may be a (relatively small) correlation between length and trustworthiness, but there are many very short but important scientific reports and a whole lot of very long useless ones. A bad scientific experiment does not become better if you explain every little detail about it.
John Nash's PhD dissertation was only 28 pages long. It earned him a Nobel prize in Economic Sciences. This at least proves that a report does not need to be long to be considered extremely good.
-
This does not provide an answer to the question. Once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post; instead, provide answers that don't require clarification from the asker. - From Review – Scientist 2 hours ago
No.
In physics, traditionally the best science is reported in a paper that is about four pages long. Other papers are nearly always longer. So I would say that in physics credibility has a negative correlation with length, but that nobody should use length to predict credibility.
-
1I disagree that the best science in physics is about 4 pages long. What is true is that the most prestigious journals take papers about 4 pages long, so everyone tries to fit their best results (and also their not so good results) into four pages. If those journals would also take longer papers, there would be equally good science with 100 pages. Not to mention that there are outstanding papers by people who, for one reason or the other, don't feel like condensing their results to four pages. – ndpl 4 hours ago
-
1I'm guessing this four page number comes from the likes of PRL, in which case it's important to note that the papers published there are often summaries of research that's also described in more detail elsewhere. – David Z 3 hours ago
-
@ndpl I agree with you. I'm not sure why you think we disagree. It's a tradition, not something actually relevant to the quality. – Anonymous Physicist 3 hours ago