# Gray literature and technical reports

**URL:** <http://forum.0xdbfb7.com/t/gray-literature-and-technical-reports/22>\
**Category:** the conduct of science\
**Created:** [May 3, 2021, 6:23pm UTC](http://forum.0xdbfb7.com/t/gray-literature-and-technical-reports/22 "2021-05-03T18:23:51Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![0xDBFB7](http://forum.0xdbfb7.com/user_avatar/forum.0xdbfb7.com/0xdbfb7/32/7_2.png) [@0xDBFB7](http://forum.0xdbfb7.com/u/0xDBFB7)\
**Post date:** [May 3, 2021, 6:23pm UTC](http://forum.0xdbfb7.com/t/gray-literature-and-technical-reports/22/1 "2021-05-03T18:23:52Z")

</div>

I really enjoy technical reports and gray literature.

For instance, consider Albany et al.

They seem to be quite consistently good and reasonable; and a lot of important negative reports are in there which otherwise soft-money researchers seem to be too chicken to publish (see Brandon on Tsen laser).

Some ideas:

- an institution that is likely to publish gray literature that I will read 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

- flexible format, author can write as they see fit

- Different kind of peer-review. Rather than journal-shopping, usually facilities will have a “neighborly” review