figuring out what is already known about these topics
This is called literature review, and is not really research in a topic, only a (necessary) prologue to one. You may want to be more careful in your terminology, if you want to be taken seriously. “Research in the Riemann hypothesis” undertaken by a non-expert in the relevant sub-field of math raises a huge crackpot red flag. On the other hand, “Analysis of applicability of the RH to the provability of AI friendliness” sounds somewhat more reasonable.
Hmmm. I was pretty sure “research” usually involved studying the existing the literature and/or making original contributions. When someone makes original contributions to a field, this is specified by calling it “original research.”
You might be technically right, but “research” does suggest going in the direction of original research, so it’s better to clarify by saying “we reviewed literature on X” or something like that instead of “we researched X”. Also, agreed with shminux about triggering loud crackpot alarm with “we researched Riemann hypothesis”, it might even be a good idea to go back and edit this out of the report.
In particular I’d say “did unpublished research on topic X” sounds like “did research that might be published (i.e. is valuable and original)” whereas “researched topic X” sounds more like “read about things.”
Specifically, I’d point out that the monthly reports read like a sort of ‘achievements’ post, where one highlights the best greatest stuff done that month; it’s greater/better to do original research than just regular research or studying, so in that context, one expects the former rather than the latter.
In the sciences, “research” always means “original research”. Only in fields like philosophy can a Ph.D. thesis consist mostly of a review of what everyone else has said on a subject.
This is called literature review, and is not really research in a topic, only a (necessary) prologue to one. You may want to be more careful in your terminology, if you want to be taken seriously. “Research in the Riemann hypothesis” undertaken by a non-expert in the relevant sub-field of math raises a huge crackpot red flag. On the other hand, “Analysis of applicability of the RH to the provability of AI friendliness” sounds somewhat more reasonable.
Hmmm. I was pretty sure “research” usually involved studying the existing the literature and/or making original contributions. When someone makes original contributions to a field, this is specified by calling it “original research.”
You might be technically right, but “research” does suggest going in the direction of original research, so it’s better to clarify by saying “we reviewed literature on X” or something like that instead of “we researched X”. Also, agreed with shminux about triggering loud crackpot alarm with “we researched Riemann hypothesis”, it might even be a good idea to go back and edit this out of the report.
In particular I’d say “did unpublished research on topic X” sounds like “did research that might be published (i.e. is valuable and original)” whereas “researched topic X” sounds more like “read about things.”
Specifically, I’d point out that the monthly reports read like a sort of ‘achievements’ post, where one highlights the best greatest stuff done that month; it’s greater/better to do original research than just regular research or studying, so in that context, one expects the former rather than the latter.
In the sciences, “research” always means “original research”. Only in fields like philosophy can a Ph.D. thesis consist mostly of a review of what everyone else has said on a subject.