Fucking rejections

File: 1486113285542.jpg (266KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 1920x1080px

Fuck this shit

>>9171680
>The reviewer literally claimed that usage of "a" instead of "the" was a reason to reject at once.
I don't believe you.

>>9171680
You know that you can appeal a rejection, right? Email, or even better, call the action editor and ask. Explain the situation. More often than not they'll send it out for review again.

File: 123123123.jpg (131KB, 933x376px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 933x376px

>>9171853

>>9171680
was it a big journal?

>>9171856
I have never heard of any case like this. Do you have an example?

>>9171866
I did it myself a number of times, when one of the reviewers was sloppy of unfairly biassed against the work.

>>9171863
It's Q1 anyway

>>9171868
The problem is I had just ONE reviewer. And the Editor just didn't give a shit about reading the review carefully to realize the """"""flaw"""""" is not a flaw in fact.

>>9171853
Uniqueness is a big deal in maths.

>>9171870
Then stop bitching about it and contact the editor.

>>9171873
You're right, but the usage of the article there is not unambiguous. It may be "a" or "the". From the context, it is clear what is meant. The theorem was indeed proven for the case the reviewer meant ("the"). He just didn't give a fuck to read the proof. I am not saying that I am 100% right about the wording (hell, I'm not a native speaker), but it's not a reason to reject at once for fuck sake.

>>9171858
do you think we can tell anything from this picture

>>9171879
Sorry bro. If you don't believe, so be it.

>he fell for the academia meme

OH sweet summer child

Just drop this shit and go make some money

>>9171680
While I'm in a different field what you're describing is the case of a bad paper sent to a mediocre at best journal that for a long time couldn't find a reviewer that would accept reviewing it. Pointing out subtleties of language is a clear mark of a junior reviewer. Mostly those are impressed by your work because they don't know any better, but they can also sometimes aggrandize themselves by rejecting your work - they would have known much better. But mostly at least in my field the decision on a manuscript is made by the editor.

We have a paper that we have submitted to 7 journals by now, we started submitting in 2014. Average overall is half a year. But this is just a case of the strategy of my professor to try real high in the beginning when you're certain that nobody else will publish something similar soon.

I'm in medicine. You're in mathematics? What is your paper about?

>>9171906
Yes, math. Math is notoriously awful when it comes to publishing

>>9171920
One thing that's big in my field and that helps a lot is knowing the editor. Is your professor good friends with someone on the editorial board? Does anyone in your group review papers for the journal?

>>9171929
>One thing that's big in my field and that helps a lot is knowing the editor
Same here

>Is your professor good friends with someone on the editorial board? Does anyone in your group review papers for the journal?
Unfortunately not

>>9171936
Maybe that's the problem.

Overall, I strongly agree that there is something fundamentally flawed about the current publication system.

>>9171885
Tfw too smart to make money.

>>9171858
Bro it seems as though the difference between 'a' and 'the' is a statement about uniqueness here.

Mind uncensoring more of that?

>>9171956
>has a couple of papers rejected
>there is something fundamentally flawed about the current publication system.
you're obviously not cut out for this

>>9172000
I could cite some of my publication stats and you random online fag would probably doubt their veracity so I won't. I'm just not going to try to convince you that I know about this shit extensively and it's one of the main reasons why I think about stopping to do this, the other being that I feel that most of the value we create through significant sacrifice is captured by other people that gain the principal profit from it.

You obviously have no idea about how the system works. You finish your paper and then it's a pain game of how long can you eat shit vs how good do you want to publish, at least in my group it mostly is because we mostly do stuff that we have a certain methodological advantage for, so nobody else can take it away from us if we start too high and take too long until publication.

>>9172021
>You obviously have no idea about how the system works.
Except I do, that's why I usually have little trouble getting my articles out. Rejections are frustrating in the beginning; then you figure out that it's part of the deal; then you figure out how to prevent rejection in the first place.

>I could cite some of my publication stats and you random online fag would probably doubt their veracity
Get a load of yourself faggot, you're obviously either new to this or, like I said, just not cut out for it.

And just so you know, my h-index is higher than my age.

>>9172076
>Except I do, that's why I usually have little trouble getting my articles out.
Anybody can if they submit to journals that are shit enough, so congratulations. Have you ever had a first authorship in the >20 point league? I have. Your 20 1-IF-point papers are not of equal worth to that.

>Get a load of yourself faggot, you're obviously either new to this or, like I said, just not cut out for it.
I don't know what to say.

>And just so you know, my h-index is higher than my age.
Because somebody with the same name published a lot?

But let's hear it, my Hirsch index is 9. What's yours? And what's your field?

>>9171863
4 U

>>9172135
You're coming off as such a pathetic faggot, it's hilarious. You wanna turn this into a dick measuring contest? Because I can do that all day.

>Have you ever had a first authorship in the >20 point league?
>let's hear it, my Hirsch index is 9. What's yours?
My first big authorship was in Science. Took five years to prepare that paper for submission, then another year for the review process. I've been in the game for fifteen years now. My median IF is 9.2. I have never published in journals with an IF lower than that of PLoS One. My h-index is 34. My i-10 index is 29. Your turn faggot.

>>9172168

> Science
Never quite made it to Nature, did you?

> Older than 34
You can get Viagra cheap online I hear.

> Fancy other indices
Nobody cares about that shit

> Dick measuring contest
You started with the homophobic slurs and the uncalled for demeaning behavior. Maybe you missed some other board when coming here today?

Also your parents will never love you no matter what your stats become, you're just too much of an asshole.

>>9172176
not that anon, but why would you even respond. you look like an idiot right now anon. a giant projecting idiot

>>9172176
All I told you is that you're not cut out for this since you get frustrated by rejection.

Funny how publication metrics don't matter anymore now that you know that I outperform you in every one of them. You asked for it buddy.

Suck a fat dick, I've got tenure and you never will because you're not cut out for it.

>>9172182
I don't know I just figured that that's what's usual here.

>>9172189
Now you said it thrice. I do believe that the fear of not measuring up is a major motivator that brings a lot of young people into this dirty business, making them believe that they have to prove that they are smart to beat this rat race that has even worse conditions than the regular work rat race, and what talented and hard-working young people they are, wasted by this shit show.

You remind me a little of the folks over at fit that e-stat about their lifts as if anybody cares what a stranger on the internet claims.

The overall view that the current publication system is deeply flawed is not something I necessarily had to come up with by myself, although I did, lots of smart and accomplished people have stated this for years and suggested ways to alleviate the flaws.

>>9172189
Oh yeah congrats on the tenure now you will never leave the game and sacrifice even more of yourself for ethereal fame that only a few selected people around the world would even know about. It's as vapid as regular fame, just much smaller.

>>9172199
>Now you said it thrice.
Four times. No wonder your math papers get rejected if you can't even count.

>>9172208
But I'm not in math or in STEM at all as I said above. No wonder with your reading comprehension...

I'm out of here congrats on the Science paper and tenure but my professors all have no time to post here.

>>9172189
>Suck a fat dick, I've got tenure and you never will because you're not cut out for it.
Lying faggot lol

>>9172222
>I'm out of here congrats on the Science paper and tenure but my professors all have no time to post here.
hahaha not him again, but what? you know their lives? One of the biggest hitters in biophysics right now whose lab im in flies at LEAST weekly to either DC or Japan, and you bet your ass she could shitpost from the plane if she wanted to. you think professors are constantly fucking thinking and doing work? they have lives too anon

>>9172205
>Oh yeah congrats on the tenure now you will never leave the game and sacrifice even more of yourself for ethereal fame that only a few selected people around the world would even know about. It's as vapid as regular fame, just much smaller.
dude go worship a kardashian or something if you think tenure means fame, or the desire for it. It means he has no boss and can do whatever the fuck he wants while still being supported by an institution (within reasonable limits of course).
you clearly dont know how fucking annoying it is to not be able to direct your own research, tenure is all about that ability, for the rest of your life.

>>9172232
I'm not from the U.S. and have only seen how tenure is glorified there. So then probably tenure is better than no tenure. I can only tell that the workload in particular with regards to teaching and administrative work does also take some increase when you become a professor, and while you don't need to handle any pipettes, you need to do a lot of managing that doesn't pertain to the scientific questions themselves.

>>9172228
My professors work all the time every day. They don't read the newspapers. They have about 1 hour most days to spend with their family and sleep from 2:30 to 05:30. So I don't know. Maybe some fields are more competitive than others. I only know that my professors always had more than enough money to pay me, which is not true of many other former PhDs/postdocs, I think the reason for this is their workaholism.

>>9171858
"a" and "the" have different meanings anon. you do seem pretty fairly fluent at using the word "Fuck" though, only made 1 mistake with it.

>>9171680
Going to reject your OP.

>For fuck sake
is incorrect and should read
>for fuck's sake

Please revise and resubmit tomorrow.

File: 1431001402718.jpg (1MB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1536px

>>9172263
>rejected again

>>9171929

I can't believe knowledgeable people can act this stupid.
There must be some sort of reason or than they didn't felt like it or whatever

OP, the ignorant ass academia pays you to not be an illiterate. It's your problem for not being able to speak english properly, after all, you are getting paid. By taxpayer money. It IS your job to publish stuff.

>>9172259
articles in english (and other languages for that matter) are notoriously difficult for even very intelligent 2nd language learners to master

>>9172333
No they're not, English is fucking easy as shit.

I'm also not a native English speaker.

>>9171680
> plays the grandest autismo game
> gets hurt in the process

It's your fault you know, you could have refused but you wished for the "good" academic life. You joined a system which is keeping us down and I can't but rejoice in your suffering

by the way, it's "NEITHER OF me OR this reviewer ARE a native speakers"

Stay mad academicuck

>>9171680
>t. brainlet

>>9172862
>wishing for goodness is punishable

Who hurt you?

>>9172862
>by the way, it's "NEITHER OF me OR this reviewer ARE a native speakers"

>ESLs teaching english
just stop

ITT a fat troll shills for the current publication system

>>9171680
yea bu a fucking florist deserves money
and so do tobacco farmers
crackhead

>>9172326
So a blunt rejection for an article misuse seems okay for you? What kind of an ignorant crackpot are you?

>>9171680

> Academia
> Not raising goats

>>9174138

I don't care about an article misuse personally, but if the journal cares, and you are getting paid to publish in said journal, and you don't get to publish, you are robbing the people who pay you for publishing.

Get over your rage and resubmit.

>>9174157
>you are getting paid to publish in said journal
Are you an idiot or a complete idiot?

>>9174174
What else are you getting paid for?

>>9174209
If you don't belong in academia, then leave this thread. It's not for you.

>>9174213

If you can't even answer simple questions, how are you supposed to answer the difficult ones?

Why do you ask for the salary of a scientist if you refuse to act like one?

>>9174213
Seems like you don't belong in academia if you can't admit mistakes and decide to blame other people for pointing them out.


The article "a" might be referring to one element of many entities, while "the" usually contrasts uniqueness.

Take this example: you say "a building", "a house" or "a road" when referring to arbitrary features of city life.

"Look what a nice road this is. What a rude waiter."

In contrast, if you suggest a specific feature, you usually use "the". It's the eiffel tower that is the symbol of paris, the internet that everyone uses, the cafe everyone likes to visit most.

"Let's go to the mall. They have the best shops in town."

It's these subtle nuances native speakers are able to understand, and usually people will look down on you if you don't pick it up.

>>9174259
Admit mistakes is called "revise&reconsider". That's how it's normally made, dumbass. A paper is rejected only in exceptional cases like if it can't be fixed at all, or was plagiarized.

>>9174272
Well if he made the mistake in one of his deductions, as >>9171858 suggests, it might be critical for the correctness of the proof.

Take this example:
"A square is a polygon" is a correct statement.
"A square is the polygon" is a wrong statement.

If you base your proof on a wrong assumption, than the paper has no value for publishing and gets rejected.

>>9174279
>If you base your proof on a wrong assumption, than the paper has no value for publishing and gets rejected.
Except that the theorem made a correct assumption and did a correct proof. Even the reviewer does not dispute it as the pic showed. I repeat, you're dumb.

>>9174285

It is considered rude to insult one another during a conversation both online and offline.

And again, if you wish to have a proper discussion, post your full paper. Until then >>9174279 holds true and we have no means to assume otherwise.

It seems the distinction between a definite and indefinite article is critical for the understanding of the proof, and your failure to account for it is the reason this paper got rejected.

File: 1481440254001.jpg (72KB, 210x230px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 210x230px

>>9174317
Sure, I'll post the full paper as you wish.

>>9174328

I think most mathematicians post preprints on arxiv

>>9174331
We do, so what?