PB2A

If we are asked to write a credible research paper regarding medical advances toward curing AIDS or newly-discovered computer programming methods, why is it that searching and citing Wikipedia would be strongly frowned upon? It contains a sufficient amount of accurate information—at least in my experiences—does it not? What it does not have, however, is research-based, peer-reviewed information. In order to determine the distinctions (which may be slightly more difficult to pick out than one might assume) between a peer-reviewed, scholarly publication and a nonacademic text, a SCIgen research paper—a computer-generated research paper regarding computer science that flows grammatically, but actually makes very little sense after a thorough read through—is placed side-by-side with a peer-reviewed, academic publication entitled “Quantum Cybernetics and Complex Quantum Systems Science: A Quantum Connectionist Exploration.”

Due to my complete and utter lack of understanding of either publication, the main focus centers around surface rhetorical features and conventions rather than an in-depth analysis of computer science methodologies, whereupon I sincerely apologize for any disappointment. But without further ado, each article begins with a large, bold title at the top of the page; however, the academic publication title is printed in red and is also preceded by publication information, including the original source, publication date, and volume, issue, and page numbers. The names of the authors are printed just below the titles in fonts smaller than the titles are written in, bold and black in both cases. Just below the authors’ names in both articles is an abstract, detailing the focuses and purposes of the articles; however, the abstract in the scholarly academic publication is more than twice as long as each of the ones generated by the SCIgen program. Where the generated paper’s abstract is followed by a table of contents, the scholarly academic publication’s abstract is followed by a list of key words, a digital object identifier (DOI) number, and repeated publication information.

The two fall back in stride with boldly marked and numbered introductions (both marked by the number, one). The generated paper then proceeds in a much more general sequence than the other, using generic headings, such as, “Related Works,” “Architecture,” “Evaluation,” and “Conclusion.” The scholarly publication is much more explicit in regards to its headings, such as “Quantum Artificial Neural Networks as Autonomous Quantum Computing Systems.” In each case, all of the section headings are numbered and followed by paragraphs that refer back to that heading. Both publications contain either tables, graphs, or equations, or a mixture of the three. The generated publications, however, contain only five or six of these, whereas the scholarly publication is littered with equations and contains two tables. While specific language regarding computer science is used consistently in both publications, the SCIgen paper is more or less gibberish, and therefore, illegitimate. Both close with a lengthy list of references, citing the sources used to write the papers.              

The most readily visible discrepancies between the two publications are the non-textual structure and detail that compose each. The scholarly publication is marked by color and even some shading with the purpose of color-coding rows of information for clarity; it is also separated into two columns of text. The SCIgen publication, on the other hand, is written in only black ink and is not organized into columns. Although these differences are important to note, they are not necessarily the defining factors of a scholarly publication versus a nonacademic text.

Despite all of the similarities between the two publications, there must be something (besides the fact that it is clearly marked as peer-reviewed) that creates the distinction between the scholarly text and the nonacademic piece. The most prominent differences are the amount of proof that the texts use to support their assertions and the intended audiences and purposes of each. Although I do not claim to actually possess an understanding of either article, it is quite clear that nearly every section of the scholarly text is sprinkled heavily with supporting mathematic concepts and equations. The SCIgen article does use a few graphs and diagrams to back up its “claims,” but with just more than a glance, it is obvious that these “claims” and graphs are nonsense. Because the SCIgen articles are only produced for the sake of amusement and entertainment, their intended audiences are much more extensive because no one can actually make sense of what is written in those papers. Quite contrarily, the scholarly research paper is geared toward a very narrow range of audiences with the intent to inform its readers about a very specific subject regarding “Quantum Cybernetics and Complex Quantum Systems Science” (I apologize for my ineptitude to find a better way to state it). Regardless, the objectives of the two differing texts are quite apparent, even without conducting an exhaustive analysis of the computer-science-jargon-flooded text.