/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.16060689]

>the literature review is relaxing
>the experiments are easy to implement
>the data is panning out
>the paper practically writes itself
We're all going to make it.

[Anonymous No.16060706]

I'm 43 and I don't even have a high school degree

[Anonymous No.16060739]

>>16060689
you sure do seem to like talking about yourself on social media

[Anonymous No.16061289]

>tfw a Makefile generates your pdf from your latex and matplotlib scripts

[Anonymous No.16061311]

Based publisher.
WAGMI

[Anonymous No.16061981]

>>16060706
same.

[Anonymous No.16063135]

>>16060689
>all that happens
>publisher still rejects it because one of your peer reviewers found some bullshit to nitpick over

[Anonymous No.16063160]

>>16063135
>reviewers bitch about how methods are inadequate to prove the conclusion because it contradicts their intuition
>once methods are made more convincing, next set of reviewers 180 to complaining that there's no novelty and the results are obvious

[Anonymous No.16063167]

>>16063135
>reviewer complains about shortcut in methods that has no consequence on results or conclusion
>"it isn't realistic"

[Anonymous No.16063183]

>reviewer doesn't understand the paper whatsoever, despite using well-established, uncontroversial methods and clearly explaining them, and writes a bunch of completely irrelevant criticisms based on his headcanon

[Anonymous No.16063320]

>>16063183
>reviewer writes, "the methods section merely references other papers in the field with the same or similar methods instead of justifying the choice of methods"

[Anonymous No.16063326]

>>16063320
This, but they also say
>the paper should be shortened

[Anonymous No.16063372]

>>16060689
>wrote some gay papers
>wrote a shitty thesis
>immediately got the fuck out
You too can follow in my footsteps.

[Anonymous No.16063967]

>>16063372
Gay papers on the way.

[Anonymous No.16063997]

>>16063967
Congrats.
I occasionally check my papers on Google Scholar. The first one has been cited like ten times, but never in a way that makes me think they actually read it. The second one was only ever cited in my own thesis.
Basically, it was all a scam.

[Anonymous No.16064052]

>>16063997
Don't think like that. You killed some easy problems and forced later graduate students to be more ambitious or creative than they they thought they could get away with. That's praiseworthy.

[Anonymous No.16064147]

>>16063135
>use similar method for doing something as an analogy for a method you're using to do something else
>"but this isn't a situation where (similar method) can be used!"

[Anonymous No.16064187]

>>16060689
>one chance at a PHD
>roll an Indian advisor

[Anonymous No.16064349]

>>16064147
>imagine being so fat you look at computers and see food