Why are technical reports so good?
For instance, consider Albany et al; or
They seem to be quite consistently good and reasonable; and a lot of good negative reports are in there.
Some ideas:
- an institution requires workers to have certain expertise, rather than an exlusive filter on the outputs (e.g. journal) - that seems like it could be a in general though
- funding slightly less dependent on conclusion, no hesitation for negative results
- flexibke format, author can write as they see fit
Since there’s a bit less peer review,