. I'd feel bad right now if I were the WMCSI. 
. Anyway, I remember that I also got one paper for review where I did not understand a word, because the method was a niche application. Usually, you should send this paper back to the journal so that they find a new reviewer. It gets problematic when you do some research and find that nobody else is working in that particular field. This brings the probablilty of a competent reviewer next to zero. This then poses the question: What do you do ?'Strue, though its a whole lot more amusing when its just computer-generated gibberish. Reminds me of some parallels to the time that Al Gore gave a speech here and they passed out BINGO cards that had technology "buzzwords" on them. The goal of the game was to cross off every buzzword that Gore said until you got five in a row, in which case you stood up and help up your BINGO card (because shouting "BINGO!" would have been rude).Turjan said:That doesn't really surprise me at all. This happens even to funding organisations, although those positively judged grant applications that I know of were probably not computer generated, but carfully composed from wishful expectations
"While the work is highly original, it does not appear to be of any interest to the academic community."Turjan said:It gets problematic when you do some research and find that nobody else is working in that particular field. This brings the probablilty of a competent reviewer next to zero. This then poses the question: What do you do
Was that a RL game during one of his speeches? It would have been nice to see lots of people stand up holding up a BINGO cardRystil Arden said:
..Turjan said:Was that a RL game during one of his speeches? It would have been nice to see lots of people stand up holding up a BINGO card
But it's true. Nobody wants to be seen as stupid. If you raise your voice and tell somebody that he talks rubbish, there's always the chance that you just might not know enough about that topic, and the accused might uncover your stupid deed. As most people are cowards, there is a good chance to succeed with such a manoeuvre
Too true. But I'm a branded child. In the last lab where I was working we used a method that was unique in the world, at least in its accuracy. It's so tiring to get these 'no interest to the academic community' letters just because the reviewers didn't understand the method. It didn't even help to attach the original methodological paper. Maybe, I'm a bit more accepting because of this experience.tarchon said:
Those reviewers who refuse to bother trying to understand your methods are probably the same ones who accepted the fake stuff because it had nice-looking graphs and such without really reading it. I guess it just means we need better reviewers.Turjan said:
Well, as long as the reviewers are also your competitors, the situation won't change much. Actually, I don't see any acceptable solution for this problem. If the reviewers are not your competitors, they are most probably not interested in what you do. I'm not convinced that this is better.Rystil Arden said:
