It has long been known that most research articles start with “it has long been known”. This is generally followed by something you sort of knew, but not quite how, or when you learned it; yet it has “long been known”. But you know what they mean.

Anyone who has authored a paper knows it must be written in the secret, arcane language of scientific research. To the casual reader it may appear perfectly reasonable, but each publishing scientist has a kind of built-in universal translator – they know that when something “has long been known”, the author just couldn’t be bothered to find out who had first reported it.

A lone (rebel) scientist, C.D. Graham, Jr., flouted the vows of secrecy and published a glossary of research terms and their actual meanings in a 1957 issue of Metal Progress. I’ve reproduced it after the jump; use as a handy guide for the next time you read “it is generally believed that” and suspect the real meaning is “a couple of my friends think so too”.

A glossary for research reports

 From Metal Progress 71, 75 (1957)
C D GRAHAM, JR.
Scientific term

It has long been known that. . . .

 Actual meaning

I haven’t bothered to look up the original reference
. . . of great theoretical and practical importance . . . interesting to me
While it has not been possible to provide definite answers to these questions . . . The experiments didn’t work out, but I figured I could at least get a publication out of it
The W-Pb system was chosen as especially suitable to show the predicted behaviour. . . . The fellow in the next lab had some already made up
High-purity . . .
Very high purity . . .
Extremely high purity . . .
Super-purity . . .
Spectroscopically pure . . .		 Composition unknown except for the exaggerated claims of the supplier
A fiducial reference line . . . A scratch
Three of the samples were chosen for detailed study . . . The results on the others didn’t make sense and were ignored
. . . accidentally strained during mounting . . . dropped on the floor
. . . handled with extreme care throughout the experiments . . . not dropped on the floor
Typical results are shown . . . The best results are shown
Although some detail has been lost in reproduction, it is clear from the original micrograph that . . . It is impossible to tell from the micrograph
Presumably at longer times . . . I didn’t take time to find out
The agreement with the predicted curve is excellent fair
good poor
satisfactory doubtful
fair imaginary
. . as good as could be expected non-existent
These results will be reported at a later date I might possibly get around to this sometime
The most reliable values are those of Jones He was a student of mine
It is suggested that . . .
It is believed that . . .
It may be that . . .		 I think
It is generally believed that . . . A couple of other guys think so too
It might be argued that . . . I have such a good answer to this objection that I shall now raise it
It is clear that much additional work will be required before a complete understanding . . . I don’t understand it
Unfortunately, a quantitative theory to account for these effects has not been formulated Neither does anybody else
Correct within an order of magnitude Wrong
It is to be hoped that this work will stimulate further work in the field This paper isn’t very good, but neither are any of the others in this miserable subject
Thanks are due to Joe Glotz for assistance with the experiments and to John Doe for valuable discussions Glotz did the work and Doe explained what it meant