I think this viewpoint is correct for reviewers, but not necessarily citers.
As a citer, my attention is distributed in this order: Abstract, Figures, Result & Methods, THEN Introduction & Conclusions & Discusion. In my view, everything other than “this is what i found when I did this” is extra information.
I don’t care nearly as much why you went doing that, nor do I care what you think the results mean, unless I’m actually stumped for explanations. Typically that sort of information is either implicit or in the abstract anyway.
I think this is because reviewers want to know what point you are making, where as people looking to cite stuff are typically trying to support a point rather than understand a point.
I think this viewpoint is correct for reviewers, but not necessarily citers.
As a citer, my attention is distributed in this order: Abstract, Figures, Result & Methods, THEN Introduction & Conclusions & Discusion. In my view, everything other than “this is what i found when I did this” is extra information.
I don’t care nearly as much why you went doing that, nor do I care what you think the results mean, unless I’m actually stumped for explanations. Typically that sort of information is either implicit or in the abstract anyway.
I think this is because reviewers want to know what point you are making, where as people looking to cite stuff are typically trying to support a point rather than understand a point.
Again, this may be field-dependent -in mathematics, reading the paper without reading the intro first is a world of hardness.