jump to navigation

Hateful reviewers October 25, 2009

Posted by CK in Funny, Research.
Tags: , , , ,
3 comments

Sometimes, you submit a paper to a conference, and you know the chances are somewhat slim based on usual acceptance rates. So you are familiarized with the idea that your paper will be rejected, but don’t quite expect what happens then. You get your 4 reviews, and one reviewer is very happy with your paper. You get a 9/10 overall. Then the other two are posing some reasonable questions, but still they both give you a 7/10 overall. And then, then comes one who basically provides all kinds of completely useless, stupid, unjustified, plain wrong comments, and gives you a 2/10 — even on paper organization, that the others all marked with an almost perfect grade. Now I have a few ways to interpret this behavior, none of which can be elaborated without becoming too explicit. I mean, this just shows hate. If it wasn’t a blind review, I would seriously think it was personal. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve had papers rejected before, and I’m perfectly ok with that, when it comes with justified comments and useful advice. But when it happens without those, it’s just bothering me.

I hate hateful reviewers, and some times, I just hate my luck (or lack of luck, thereof).

Science 2.0 April 24, 2008

Posted by CK in Research.
Tags: , , ,
add a comment

Scientific American has published an article about what is now called Science 2.0. The concept is similar to the leap from the WWW to Web 2.0: Publishing of scientific data in ways possible to share and aggregate it. Essentially, we’re talking about an application of social networking concepts to scientific research, thus bringing the latter back to its roots of openly sharing and reviewing scientific developments before their final form. According to the article, it has worked very well so far, for the OpenWetWare project.

(via)