Those readers who routinely read research journals for their studies or work will be aware of the sub-text that is sometimes present. Such sub-text may subtly question current paradigms, or be a veiled attack on other researchers, or hint at deeper implications of the research, or place caveats on the findings of the paper.

 

Perhaps the most famous example is Darwin’s single line in On the Origin of Species:

 

“Much light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history.”

 

That is not so much a tangled bank, as the seeds of a tangled web whose tendrils still extend today towards the light.

 

What started me on this line of thought was stumbling on this brilliant sentence in the abstract of a paper on planetary accretion discs.

 

“Disc modelling is in some sense more of an art than a science, and since a steady disc can be constructed for almost any combination of viscosity and radiation process the possibilities for extending one's list of publications are almost endless.”

 

Delightful: one senses a sly dig at rival researchers who have pursued exactly such a course.

 

So, do you have other examples of such sub-text that might amuse, shock, or enlighten? If so, post away.

So, do you have other examples of such sub-text that might amuse, shock, or enlighten? If so, post away.

 

I don't, but your example above could be extended to lots of papers in high energy phenomenology.