/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9778667
>if journals will reject manuscripts based on the style of prose, then why do peer-review fanatics insist that peer-review is solely about the quality of the research?

Because shitflinging in publications does not help anyone. It is counterproductive. It's way too easy to mix up personal opinion with a testable result or interpretation thereof. What is there to gain from adding 'fucks'? You can do that just as effectively without coming across as an edgy sperglord and antagonising people.

I mean, obviously there's crappy practices is most sciences, but I wouldn't want articles to read like fucking 4chan posts.

>>9778699
>Because shitflinging in publications does not help anyone.
Do you see how that doesn't answer the question asked?
FYI, I put that fuck in there after arXiv rejected me, which was PDFv2. Fuck appears in PDFv3 which, regarding your own question, uses that word to add emphasis to the stated brokenness and reads better than "really really super duper broken"
>The General Relevance of the Modified Cosmological Model
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1712.0598

>>9778667
>then why do peer-review fanatics insist that peer-review is solely about the quality of the research?
they don't

>>9778743
I've never once seen a criticism like, "Maybe your tone wasn't pleasing to them and that's why they rejected you." However, I have seen very many times, "Have you seen the absolute garbage that gets published every month? If your research isn't even that good then no wonder you didn't get published."

The reason garbage gets published is because it's all about the prose, not the science. The science matters, but not as much as the prose.

>>9778769
>I've never once seen a criticism like, "Maybe your tone wasn't pleasing to them and that's why they rejected you."
Well, you have received that criticism now.

You're clearly aware that the foul language is causing you problems, so deliberately including it anyway can only mean that you are more interested in hiding behind "being persecuted by the establishment" than actually getting your stuff read.

>>9778743
>inflammatory
arXiv rejected this paper too:
On The Riemann Zeta Function
http://www.vixra.org/abs/1703.0073

Since I'm detecting an arXiv employee, know that when I round you all up to kill your families, I am going to cite a similar predicate about what is not acceptable to me. I hate you, and I will kill you all. You chose the wrong side of history and the penalty is death.

>>9778667
You need to get the fuck off /sci/.
Mods please permaban this retard.

>>9778667
You should write a blog explaining your ideas in exactly the way you want, a la John Baez.

>>9778808
It's already written. The man whose rank is 47 owns the lives of everyone else. The ones with lower rank are obliged to kill whomever he deems to die.

I hate Baez. He will die too.
http://2occatl.net/splittingofthetimes.html

>>9778777
Why does physics attract this kind of person? Megalomaniacal narcissism. The math narcissists seem a lot more self-aware.

>>9778852
No, man. I do have that rank. True story, ask your friends.

>>9778667
That garbage deserves to be rejected. It's a peer reviewed journal, not a pop science article on some gay website. Learn to write like a professional academic or find another job

>>9779124
What's a peer-reviewed journal dick head? I didn't send it to one. I'm not a professional academic, why should write like one? Say... you don't have this thing where you have your own problems and then you act everyone else needs to deal with your problems too do you?

>>9778743
arXiv goes to great lengths to say that they don't offer peer-review so your arXiv blurb has no bearing on peer-review.

>>9779159
You suck at writing and don't understand anything about peer review. It doesn't surprise me that you aren't an academic. Then again, a lot of them are bad too, but not as bad as you.

>>9778667
>in my case
>Style of prose is primary bottleneck.
Good.

>>9779167
I am an excellent writer and I am by far the most successful living academic. You probably aren't surprised to hear me say that, but you are going to surprised by what I say when I get my hands on your family.

>>9779177
good or not, it is not good that people identify the scientific merit as the bottleneck when the style of prose is the bottleneck.

>>9779200
>I am an excellent writer
>you are going to surprised

>>9779200
lmao the delusion, kys faggot

>>9779200
How do you deal with people in real life who are more powerful than you? Have some self awareness man.

>>9778667
hey, from one human being to another, I love you, but you need to get your shit together
I mean it's a free world, if you want to go crazy and die alone in the gutter, that's your thing, but I think it would be a shame

>>9778667
>he thinks it would be fun to read several articles on a subject with differing styles of prose

It's not about being dry, it's about extracting meaning quickly without need to go full english major