It is all transparent that each field of study was at first devoid of any significant contribution until some experts specialized in that major did their best in order to bring about discoveries as well as developments. After a certain time, the number of experts grows and reaches to a certain level that any small contribution would be helpful. A question, which is a matter of debate, a controversial one, is whether outsiders are capable of creating important developments in a field. Although it is a little hard to reach a consensus on this issue, I disagree with this statement. Using following reasons would, I try to discuss this issue more widely.
As mentioned in the introduction above, scientists of all fields share their knowledge to create promising advancements by collaboration. However, in some majors, the amount of cooperative scientists may be lower due to the lack of evidence which prove their theories that later lead to a great achievement. In addition, their filed may require the knowledge of other majors. Outsiders, though unlikely to do research on another field, might assist the scientists to make their previous achievements more applicable. To delineate, consider researchers of interdisciplinary subjects who are obligated to work on a mixture of fields. Bioinformatics experts , who combine computer science with medicine, are capable of supervising projects involving both majors. As a result, as an outsider to the field of computer science, bioinformatics experts can design expert systems that automatically predict the success of a specific surgery using genes of several patients. Computer engineers may consider it hard to design such system but they have to admit that collaboration with other related fields would be prominent for their major.
The other issue that requires a meticulous attention is that, although some outsiders can improve their fields, the insiders have more in-depth insight into their fields. The bioinformatics experts that I mentioned above can illustrate this issue. Often do the scholars of an interdisciplinary field gain knowledge of each sub-subject in less detail and depth. Going into the depth, they may be helpful in some cases but if a project faced with a serious flaw, they may not be able to fix it as well as the experts of that filed, who are in this example computer engineers. Simply stated, the outsiders are rarely considered to be the main contributors to a specific field.
It should be highlighted that the evidence demonstrates that the number of outsiders who caused a great achievement in a field are far less that the ideal number. This is mainly due to the competitions between individuals of a specific field who tend to compare their discoveries with each other and further show their superiority. In an ideal academic society, various departments should collaborate with each other and criticize each other to improve the overall academic level. Though this statement seems unreachable, it would be perfect if similar fields could obviate their deficiencies.
In sum, although some people hold the other side, as far as I am concerned, insiders can achieve remarkable success if they cooperate with each other. The inevitable competence as well as the in-depth knowledge of experts impede the collaboration of insiders and outsiders though unlikely.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 655, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...ixture of fields. Bioinformatics experts , who combine computer science with medic...
^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'so', 'well', 'in addition', 'as a result', 'as well as', 'in some cases']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.22619047619 0.240241500013 94% => OK
Verbs: 0.139455782313 0.157235817809 89% => OK
Adjectives: 0.115646258503 0.0880659088768 131% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0340136054422 0.0497285424764 68% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0425170068027 0.0444667217837 96% => OK
Prepositions: 0.132653061224 0.12292977631 108% => OK
Participles: 0.0255102040816 0.0406280797675 63% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.07628133082 2.79330140395 110% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0340136054422 0.030933414821 110% => OK
Particles: 0.00170068027211 0.0016655270985 102% => OK
Determiners: 0.125850340136 0.0997080785238 126% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0289115646259 0.0249443105267 116% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.015306122449 0.0148568991511 103% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3364.0 2732.02544248 123% => OK
No of words: 537.0 452.878318584 119% => OK
Chars per words: 6.2644320298 6.0361032391 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.81386128306 4.58838876751 105% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.392923649907 0.366273622748 107% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.31843575419 0.280924506359 113% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.217877094972 0.200843997647 108% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.150837988827 0.132149295362 114% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.07628133082 2.79330140395 110% => OK
Unique words: 263.0 219.290929204 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.489757914339 0.48968727796 100% => OK
Word variations: 58.4401715001 55.4138127331 105% => OK
How many sentences: 24.0 20.6194690265 116% => OK
Sentence length: 22.375 23.380412469 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.6682889021 59.4972553346 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 140.166666667 141.124799967 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.375 23.380412469 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.458333333333 0.674092028746 68% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.94800884956 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.21349557522 19% => OK
Readability: 54.218575419 51.4728631049 105% => OK
Elegance: 1.77952755906 1.64882698954 108% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.318262058193 0.391690518653 81% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.117199552788 0.123202303941 95% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0678976014049 0.077325440228 88% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.491888019626 0.547984918172 90% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.122902609489 0.149214159877 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.120729058494 0.161403998019 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0674553305711 0.0892212321368 76% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.401321005231 0.385218514788 104% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.100971387176 0.0692045440612 146% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.212380410714 0.275328986314 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0659296303872 0.0653680567796 101% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 17.0 10.4325221239 163% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 5.30420353982 19% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.88274336283 123% => OK
Positive topic words: 14.0 7.22455752212 194% => OK
Negative topic words: 0.0 3.66592920354 0% => More negative topic words wanted.
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.70907079646 74% => OK
Total topic words: 16.0 13.5995575221 118% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. The e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.