I have just enjoyed reading a paper where the author reports about a number of measurements he did and draws very clear ‘opinionated’ conclusions from the facts presented in the paper. This was such a refreshing read and I started to wonder why I found this so refreshing. It turns out that most networking papers I read (or have to read) either have lots of opinion but only a very few facts to support them or the papers have lots of facts but the authors refrain from articulating a clear conclusion and a clear opinion from the facts.
I find well argued ‘opinionated networking research papers’ much more fun to read and it is kind of a shame that most authors these days either shy away from formulating a clear opinion based on the facts they have observed or simply have an opinion without showing any effort to collect facts supporting their opinion. Perhaps the way our research world is organized simply does not encourage authors to write ‘opinionated’ research papers. Authors may fear that it is more difficult to get an opinionated paper accepted for publication due to what essentially is a lack of trust in the review system. Perhaps I should consider starting a Journal of Opinionated Networking Research where it is explicitly stated that it will not publish any papers having opinion but lacking supporting facts or papers having facts but lacking an opinion. I am relatively sure there will be quite some readers who will enjoy reading opinionated research papers. The problem might be to find a sufficient number of authors who understand the art of writing well opinionated networking research papers and who are not afraid of doing it.