vivkr
|
There are so many journals and so many papers published every month. It would be unrealistic if not unfair to expect that they are all equally good. In this I have to agree with Jerry that often, the authors who are trying to present a new idea may tend to focus too keenly on the brighter aspects of their work while downplaying the role of support blocks, yield etc. To a certain extent, this is fair. After all, if you are really presenting an idea which is revolutionary and may be of great use in the future, perhaps you can be forgiven for not getting all the things quite perfect. To what extent is a matter of debate.
I would also disagree with some others who say that the commercial devices consume more power because they tend to favor older, more trusted schemes. I would say that the most important factor is their need to guarantee reliable operation across various conditions (not just at room temperature for 5 out of 50 chips) and the need to provide a large number of support blocks. Innovation in industry is as high as in academia provided you compare good companies to good univs and vice versa.
Perhaps the best way to get around the problem is to look at papers which are really classics, or if you need more current material (it takes a few years for a paper to get into the classics list at the least), then rely on your experience to weed out the ones which have got the right stuff from those which don't.
Looking at the JSSC classics list, one is struck not only by the fact that the bestsellers seem to come from a handful of companies/universities (Philips/U.C.Berkeley/IBM etc.), but also by the impact most of the papers have had. Perhaps, not all good ones have made it, but that is usually rare. One can also see which ones will come on the list in the next few years (Bult & Geelen's paper on gain boosting for instance).
So I suppose we all need to use our own judgement in the end.
Vivek
|