/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2005661
what kinda conference?

Try approval based on merit instead of trolling.

>>2005666
meh...the voice of reason. Thing is, I am pretty sure the other reviewers will slam it because of the author.

>>2005669
oh.an academic one, I'd rather not divulge the field.

>>2005661
>author is almost universally hated by the field that the conference is dealing with

implying scientist care about petty shit like that

TROLL !

>>2005671
>oh.an academic one, I'd rather not divulge the field

LMAO, no one calls confrences "acedemic". That would imply it is just schools? WTF?
Professional organizations hold conferences...DURRR

Troll harder nigger

>>2005674
> Who trolls the trolls?

What? Where did you come from? Scientists are people too! Go and read your Kuhnian Sociology of science!
Trust me, this guy is disliked by most of the peers that review him.

>>2005674
Unfortunately, scientist do care about petty shit like that because most scientists are shit tier in intelligence and social fetters.

I take it that OP can't reveal the topic of the paper, the author of the paper, or the field the paper is written for without giving us something solid with which to track them down, so fuck this thread, I'm out of here.

>>2005678
STFU AND GTFO!

>>2005661
>>2005680
SAME TROLLY OP!

>>2005677
Yes, at an academic conference you will mostly find participants from Universities or research institutes with odd smattering of private companies who usually pay sponsor cash for exhibition booths

>>2005680
fuck ya shit troll

>>2005674
>>2005677
>>2005681
>>2005684

OP here. How the fuck is this trolling? I have a valid question about the ethics of possibly trolling an academic conference.

>>2005688
You are fucking retarded son.
Scientist dont do that shit, especially the ones that peer-review shit. WTF is wrong with you?
I seriously doubt they would allow anyone like you to review papers....GTFO! TROLL

>>2005688
You purpose to jugde a scientist on "petty nonsense", instead of "content of their reasearch", and you claim your are not a TRoll?

LMAO, YOU ARE NO SCIENTIST
FUCK OFF!

If it's Comp Sci, and it's about forums, then accept it for the lulz. xD

PLEEEEASE?

>>2005690
>>2005697

OP here:

Right...I am taking this to mean that the consensus of /sci/ is that such an act is so heinous that even considering it is an act of trolling. This is in itself quite interesting. I didn't know that scientists were held in such high regard.

I guess I will have to read the bloody thing in detail and come up with some creative criticisms.

>>2005709
It's obviously just one person who's trolling you (notice sage in all fields). Everyone who's ever published knows how it is.

Also, how come it isn't a double blind review?
And if it is, aren't you supposed to give up the paper to some other reviewer?

>>2005709
no, accept it
even if the paper is so-so
if the collegues of this man hate him, it means that they should be confronted with his work more, instead of letting all the scientists in that field become a closed society

>>2005709
/sci/ is most adolescent atheists who adulate science as some kind of infallible religion, and scientists as some kind of infallible saints. Hence the results of this thread. They don't realize that scientists are just normal people with normal frailties.

>>2005709

>I guess I will have to read the bloody thing in detail and come up with some creative criticisms.

YES

\thread

>>2005719
>And if it is, aren't you supposed to give up the paper to some other reviewer?

DURR, another sign that the OP is trolling

>>2005719
The final decision does not rest with the individual reviewers but with the scientific commitee of the conference, but it is based on the contents of the reviews. In my opinion, it would be better for the conference if the reviews were double-blind, but I think there are some strong vested interests on the part of some of the organisers to keep it as is.

>>2005732
INDEED! Off to write.

>>2005721
>if the collegues of this man hate him, it means that they should be confronted with his work more,

no, you should not take into account what people think of the person. fuck , do you not understand science? shit is based on quality of work, nothing more nothing less.

Computer Science professorfag here.

In fact maybe the paper you are reviewing is one by me.

Don't accept it for the lulz. Then you will be no better than the people who reject it because of petty personal concerns. Also, why do you think the author is almost universally hated? How do you know that that is the case? Your opinion might be based on just the few people you have talked to.

>>2005745
What is the quality criteria? I mean sure some guy found out something new, but so did the other 500 people who submitted to a conference with only 100 slots. The decision as to what paper gets accepted has a lot to do with what is fashionable, what people are interested in, how it riffs off other people's work and so on. Science is not some guy doing mad experiments in their lab. Science is about community and communication.

>>2005775

The question isn't whether or not I should accept it (Because I will, it is not a bad paper). The question is how strongly I should argue for its acceptance.

>>2005786
>500 people who submitted to a conference with only 100 slots.

That usually isnt how conferneces work (at least the good ones). Just like publication, good work will be accepted, no matter what. It will be in the "proceedings" of the conference. It is a "scientifc journal" of the conference.

>what is fashionable, what people are interested in, how it riffs off other people's work and so on.

You are 100% correct, but you are not refering to the actual "proceedings/published scientific work", you are refering to presentations, or posters, shit like that. Basically shit that will keep people attention, and have a wide range of overlap between differnt types of research. Of course this is pretty much based on popularity....as it is in some way intened to be "entertainment".

kind of a mannish face, but I'd still hit it

>>2005791
Well, that's always the question.
Ignore anything in the others' comments that you think is personal or subjective. Focus on whatever in their comments is objective and argue for or against that. Do the same for your own review and comments.
It's only by doing this that we end up improving the situation and avoiding these stupid personal conflicts.

>>2005709
ScienTISTS are not held in high regard (as a class, anyway).
ScienCE is.

Don't fuck with the scientific progress, there's already too much shit being published.

>>2005745
you should compensate for other people who do take their feelings into account