> A grad student who is n-th author on the paper copied and pasted the instrument name from a previous paper, because (a) that paper used photos from the same SEM, (b) the grad student has never seen the SEM, (c) the name and model number of the SEM doesn't actually matter (gasp!) it's more included for tradition than anything else because the contents of the image are what matters - no one who tries to replicate the experiment in a lab will care what SEM model was used, they'll use the SEM they have at their own lab, period.
If this is true, then is the tradition counterproductive, in that it's encouraging false assertions to be put into scientific papers, for no good reason?
If so, why hasn't the tradition been reconsidered, and changed?
Perhaps because researchers in other disciplines secretly wish they were Physicists, since Physicists live in a world where this kind of equipment detail actually does matter?
If this is true, then is the tradition counterproductive, in that it's encouraging false assertions to be put into scientific papers, for no good reason?
If so, why hasn't the tradition been reconsidered, and changed?