In com­puter sci­ence and biol­ogy and much of physics, research pub­li­ca­tions are writ­ten as if they were ephemeral, part of a con­ver­sa­tion, steps made towards some mov­ing goal. Con­fer­ence pro­ceed­ings are peer reviewed, and most inter­est­ing con­fer­ences get thou­sands of sub­mis­sions. Sure there are the Big Impor­tant Papers, but who has time or incli­na­tion to write one?

Papers in this group are per­ceived as being brief and tele­graphic, and one has a sense that every­thing said has been read some­where else before, though maybe in a slightly dif­fer­ent con­text. As a result, they are dilute, like potato chips. Can’t write just one.

In oper­a­tions research and oper­a­tions man­age­ment, research pub­li­ca­tions are writ­ten for the ages, each one ground­break­ing and mono­graphic, placed with care and thought and a sense of great accom­plish­ment like blocks in a great pyra­mid. Con­fer­ence pro­ceed­ings are not peer reviewed (I am told), and receive scant sub­mis­sions. Sure, there are the lit­tle teeny brief com­mu­ni­ca­tions, but they’re just excuses to go on jun­kets, aren’t they?

Papers in this group are per­ceived as being long-​​lived and impor­tant, fraught with cant and proof, but never diluted with exam­ple. As a result, they are impen­e­tra­ble and cloy­ing efforts to read. Each one a meal in itself; a man can live for weeks on just one loaf.