QuoteOriginally posted by: KackToodlesQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaIts not a matter of math envy, but one of concern about an over-used hammer induced by a peer-review and tenure system that forces researchers to assume that everything is a nail. Flairplay's comment about "dry theory" is, at least partially, deserved. Although economics certainly produces many many "interesting" results, it's less clear that it produces correct results. Heh heh, is anyone who is not aiming for tenure (or a phd) in economics interested in reading dry economics (or business) theory papers?! I bet not. This is evidence how useless 99% of economics theory research is to pracitioners. This is in stark contrast to the "real" sciences and engineering, where the practitioners and engineers in the research labs have to read what the academic professors publish.Could not agree more.In the best areas, practise and theory inter-mix. Finance theory, apart from derivatives modelling, is far off from practise. Very few of the results you come across in academic papers are relevant or insightful. A lot presented as deep result is quite often trivial - and known. A lot is simply wrong or irrelevant.The worst bit is the intellectual theft. The number of times some of us have worked out the whole mathematics as an example to some academic quanty type - and he publishes it shamelessly is not funny.Recently one of my quants mentioned that some quant published something in 2002 - which my guy found interesting. I was at pains to point out that that technique had been in use at least since 1995, and that most traders knew it in detail.A number of these sharks circle looking to grab an idea and publish. They have the time. The rest are busy figuring out, and dealing with, the real stuff.