/sci/ - Science & Math

Show us the paper/editor's response or there's nothing to talk about

>>11365089
>Discuss related articles that both support and contradict my hypothesis, using it to motivate why my specific paper is important for clarity on the matter
>Advisor tells me to remove all mention of papers contradicting my hypotheses because you should not contradict yourself in your paper
Is he right?

>>11365128
He is, sadly. Anything that hurts your hypotheses and conclusions will get you shot down.

>>11365089
>*dr pajeet phd

>>11365089
> you've wrote

>>11365492
Did he miss the full stop?

Coronavirus in India yet?

>>11365139
So, science isn't about the Truth, about what is and is not, about how the world works, but a popularity contest.

Was it always like that, or is the past romanticised ?

>>11365539
some parts of the past are objectively better, others are not.
like working antibiotics vs cancer treament,

>>11365539
lol
>The TRUTH

>>11365539
papers were much better in the past before we became obsessed with scientific humility and passive voice
anything before the 60s really

>>11365520
>he
pajeet is right. you can't event make a shitpost without it requiring extensive editing, let alone a manuscript. check the verb forms of irregular verbs: write/wrote/written. go/went/gone. shit/shit/shit. (AE)

Does he shit outside?

>>11365816
"What you've wrote" is acceptable even if "what you've written" or "what you wrote" are better form, but "What you written" is a big nono.

>>11365834
no
"wrote" is not the past participle of "write"
that's the equivalent of saying "what you've took," "what you've stole" or "what you've did."

>>11365935
>>11365834
Before any examples are posted, please note that I have wrote was used back in the 1800s, but it's not considered correct in modern English.

>>11365128

He is right in that you shouldn't contradict yourself in the paper.
He is not right in suggesting that this should therefore remove the papers that contradict your hypothesis.

Either incorporate the new evidence into your hypothesis, or refute it. Do not present two contradictory truths.

>>11365139
Lol, this is stupid. What if I contradict the well-established theory and I explain why I dare to do so?

>>11366329
>Do not present two contradictory truths.
Can I tell that it's rather A hypothesis or it's B hypothesis and I explain what experiments should be performed to distinguish which one it is?

>>11365089
>Peer review is a fucking joke.
It is. For many causes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8D_-_4RWn8

>>11366957
If you do a good job explaining it then your chances are probably better but even then peer review is still a coin toss and your paper can end up in the hands of some boomer retard that will turn you down for the most meaningless shit.

>>11365089
There are journals that will accept any paper without peer review, if only you pay them something like $500 in "author submission fee". Surely that is your way out. Of course noone in their right mind would take your paper seriously, but you can still make it an item in your publication list. Lots of people do that.

>>11367063
That much is actually true. But apparently you chose a crappy journal which employs crappy referees. Whereas if you have a good paper, you ought to send it to a good journal that sends it to competent reviewers. With the added bonus that if the review happens to be crap anyway, then you can complain to the editor who is handling your paper, and if you are right, you will get another go with a replacement referee.

>>11366982
Sure if it was a significant work to it narrow down to two hypotheses. If there were two possibilities to begin with, then you contributed nothing.

>>11367122
What if the possibilities are "the jews conspired and corrupted the science" and "science got corrupted by natural reasons because retards are also allowed to become scientists"?

>>11366957
If you prove an well-established theory wrong then you are a superhero. But you will get extra scrutiny, especially after publication, so you better be extra careful.
Peer reviewers wont reproduce your experiment. They only care if given the results you presented if your conclusion consistent. They also care about the readability of the paper and most importantly, proper use of the Oxford comma.

>>11367148
at first I was sceptical, but then
>and most importantly, proper use of the Oxford comma.
I laughed.

>working with my group, all but me are indian
>questions are extremely easy and opinion based
>they literally Google the question and copypaste an answer
Why do they do this?

>>11367195
for a diploma, of course

>>11367195
nonwhites cant into opinion that why kikes want them so much

>>11367139
I'm pretty sure it's both.
As in, retards are Evil and Evil is retarded.

Just check the average IQ of prison-dwellers, for instance.
And kikes' is what, 90, 95.

>>11367670
True, true, but you know it can't be published any way. Not in academic literature. No matter how accurate the proof is.