/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12718693

/g/ is fucking useless, can anyone from /sci/ help me?

I've submitted an article to a journal back in July, and in late September I got an accept with minor revision, with three great reviews. I addressed all the reviewers comments and submitted a revision in mid October. First it was "under review" in manuscript central, which I thought was just either the editor in chief or the assistant editor, but then it went from under review to "awaiting reviewer selection" for some weeks and now it has been "under review" for 5-6 weeks since then. I assume it's undergoing a new full review?

I was wondering two things:
1) How long does a minor revision usually take? Is it normal that it goes back to the reviewers instead of just the editor?
2) How likely is a potential reject at this point?

The reason I ask is because I don't know what to focus on right now. I have another conference paper that was recently rejected, which I could focus on rewriting and submitting somewhere else. However, if the journal paper is accepted then I don't really need to publish the conference paper, since most of it is included in the (much longer) journal paper. My alternative is to assume that the journal paper goes through and just start writing up my dissertation, but I hate loose ends like this and my big fear is that the journal paper might get rejected or stall for a long time.

I've only ever published to one other journal before, and in that case I was invited (and the paper was an extension of a conference paper), so the review and revision process was a lot shorter once it had left the editor's desk. The field is CS btw, I guess that's relevant.

Pic semi-relevant.

The absolute state of computer science

What's it like doing an undergrad in Electrical Engineering? Given that you're interested in the subject, how rewarding is it and how difficult do you find it? I'm thinking about spending the next year preparing to enter into a STEM degree and EE is currently at the top of my list. I'm already brushing up on my precalc and know a few programming languages (for whatever that's worth). I'm a fast learner and highly motivated -- I also already have BA and MA in the humanities (again, obviously not worth much, but I'm familiar with university life and have a strong work/ research ethic). Any insight appreciated, thanks.

I expected to get a robust education combining theory and practice. Instead I spent 4 years learning how to write for loops and read lines of input from the console.

I graduated a few months ago (top 10% of my class) from a respectable school. Now I have a literally no skills and no theoretical background and 100k of student debt.

I get laughed out any job interview I attend. The only job I almost even came close to getting was a QA position at a fintech company manually executing test cases and doing off hours support. (35/k year basically no benefits)

Should I just kill myself?

*Makes 100k starting*

>>10076679
|x|<1 iff x<1 & -x<1 iff x<1 & -1<x iff -1<x<1

>>9284908
>who write inefficient, tiny programs

You mean CS majors.

>>8271290

>>8156080
youre telling me someone did this

>>8112324
I hate this image. It should be "coders" in general.

aight /sci/

Comp sci PhD student here. I'm going to a conference in a couple of months to show a paper I wrote, but I was asked to put together a "technical poster" for some workshop the University is hosting beforehand.

Never done a "technical poster" before. Got any tips for software to use before I make something mediocre in powerpoint?

Ideally I'd like something that lets me show process flows clearly.

>>7381244
That's not true, meng. Even /g/ has that CS major meme.

>>7223070
Really? You didn't?

>>6633566
There are CS grads that are actually this incompetent
>I've personally interviewed graduates who can't answer "Write a loop that counts from 1 to 10"
http://www.kegel.com/academy/getting-hired.html