Is it time to change our referring? ("Open Letter" debate)

[Miklos.Boda@eua.ericsson.se]

[[ Editor's Note: Another contribution to the ongoing discussion prompted
by Pellionisz' "Open Letter" from several issues ago.   I think the
following deals with some of the larger issues of citation which are
important to consider. -PM ]]

Dear Moderator:

 IS IT TIME TO CHANGE OUR REFERRING ?

 My contribution to the issue : "referring or not" initiated by "Open
Letter" of Dr. Pellionisz:

1. It is obvious that Dr. Pellionisz introduced a brilliant concept when
he brought the tensor analysis approach into Neural Network research.
Despite any imperfection that may exist in a new approach to the
mathematics of General Neural Spaces, his theory has already been used by
several followers and its influence is undeniable.  Dr.  Amari certainly
has the right of claiming that his differential- geometrical approach has
nothing to do with earlier comparable (tensor) approaches. However,
readers would be left uncertain, if an oversight occured and questions
would be put to Dr. Amari how he compares his approach to Pellionisz'.

2. The issue of referring or not, is unfortunately, a classic problem
(mostly between former colleagues who have a grudge against each other,
or between international competitors; see similar debate in AIDS research
recently.)  The problem could be solved, only if we start openly talking
about this serious issue, even if it is sometimes felt inconvenient to do
so. (Thus it was a good and a brave move of Dr. Pellionisz that he
brought the subject up).

Why do we use  reference lists at all?

a. First, we must list all titles which we were really using.

b. Second, by tradition, we are helping the reader to give them some
basic references for a better general understanding.

c. Third, we establish the claims of our paper over comparable
approaches. I.e. claiming the novelty of ideas, that only superficially
seem related to other approaches..

I think Dr. Amari may have had point a. in mind, whereas Dr.  Pellionisz
may consider at least points a. and c. points important, those who wish
to be kind to the reader would also consider point b.

4. Maybe it is time now to change our habits, and adapt to the new
computerized literature-search, when we can find "comparables" by looking
for keywords. Declaring proper keywords could therefore replace
references (anyone who searches in the literature of neural networks for
"tensor" will get his hands full of Pellionisz' papers).  Using such
method one could restrict citation to those items that one actually uses.

This new method, so far, is not universally accepted, and would not state
the authors claims over comparable approaches.  No search for "AIDS
virus" would settle claims who pioneered an approach, and the claims
themselves must originate from authors.

5. More over etiquette of debate: I'll hope, Dr. Arbib already regret his
precipitate remarks.  (ND v9#9).


Miklos Boda
Ellemtel, 
Telecommunication Systems Laboratories
Box 1505
125 25 Alvsjo
Sweden


------------------------------