
doi: 10.1007/bfb0028733
It has become good practice to expect authors of new model checking algorithms to provide not only rigorous evidence of the algorithms correctness, but also evidence of their practical significance. Though the rules for determining what is and what is not a good proof of correctness are clear, no comparable rules are usually enforced for determining the soundness of the data that is used to support the claim for practical significance. We consider here how we can flag the more common types of omission.
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
