I came accros these words of wisdom in Chem. Rev. 1998, 98, 1743-1753 (DOI: 10.1021/cr970022c), when I was doing a little survey on earlier review of cyclodextrin today:

(When it comes to papers) To locate the sources is easy. The computerized databases or reference lists of earlier reviews and monographs contain, with an acceptable probability, all of the relevant literature. Photocopies can be acquired from the most remote libraries of the world, but reading cannot be spared. One needs time, a lot of time, frequently requiring knowledge of various languages, and, without having one’s own experimental experience, it is difficult to separate the really original, important papers from the deluge of “me-too” papers. With due prudence, at least 50% of the publications of the two past decades are redundant and unnecessary. They contain nothing new, or even worse, very far reaching conclusions are drawn from observed marginal, insignificant small effects, promising unattainable industrial potentials.

“Me too” papers – I believe this is exactly what most people are doing, at least in China, who are therefore called “science labors” instead of scientists. Admittedly when a new finding appears in the academia, a certain amount of “me too” papers are expected to verify the repeatability of the original result. But the fact is that the number of “me too” announcements far exceeds whats needed.

And it seems one has to promise whatever attractive in the introduction section so as to get the paper published. With the highest prudence, no one can reject the industrial potentials of any research result, but in fact quite a lot of application-promising scientific works will never subjected to industrial trials or even considerations due to (too) obvious flaws in industrial view.

Of course we need open-minded research. But when a paper is promising/promoting some industrial potential of its result one would generally not catalog it into the ‘open-minded’ class, and definitely feel frustrated when its result is found actually unattainable industrially.

Most unfortunately, what I’m doing now can hardly avoid the blame of doing “me too” things. I hope the final part of my project, after careful consideration, can provide some originality for the whole work and get some “what about you” papers out thereby.