2017/01/28: An issue regarding the front page of /jp/ has been fixed. Also, thanks to all who contacted us about sponsorship.
I got a paper rejected today. No errors found. One reviewer gave a green light, but another said that the contribution was low and the editor decided to stick with the second one.Feels bad. No errors. Still a rejection. Yes another half a year is lost.Seems that it's impossible to start a new topic even in mid-tear journals. Have to lower standards even more.
>>8594813Literally just submit to another journal. Work on your next paper.
>>8594813What field is this? >half a year lostIs it experimental work?
>>8594813Submit to a different journal
>>8594866What area were/are you researching?
>>8594977Something related to theoretical CS
is it up on arxiv yet?if yes, link
>>8594985Are you serious?
>>8594988yesthis isn't biology, your being the primal source is secured by an arxiv post and you probably can't make money with your findings
>>8595011Even better, triple recursion.
>>8595009Sorry, but I prefer to keep my name unknown. Is it not natural?
>>8594813"No errors" is the absolute baseline for being not complete trash, not an indication that it should be accepted. "No errors" is the "nice guy" of reviewing: It is just next to "shit".>another said that the contribution was lowthis on the other side is valuable feedback>impossible to start a new topic even in mid-tear journals>theoretical csIf it is new, go to a conferences like everybody in CS and get your feedback there
>>8595024well, it doesn't really matter on /sci/. I've posted videos and called for reading and participation, nothing bad comes from it
>>8595045This. CS disseminate research in top conferences not journals.
>>8595058>>8595045It's somewhat related to it, but it's not CS. Nevermind.
>>8595059Just post it, remove the name if you are a paranoid faggot
>>8594813It got rejected for the first time and you're already complaining? I hope you dont play in the lottery.
>>8594813if you're confident in your work can you actually post it?thanks
>>8595113he's gonna be in for a wild ride if he wants to keep publishingmanuscripts rejected all the time
>>8595127>>8595118Where do you people get financing if you get regular rejections?
What's stopping the person who reads your paper to evaluate it from claiming it as their own?
>>8595132Rejection is a part of the process I think, I would guess that's how it is with journals anyway. I guess you would just apply to the next one. They're selective of what they publish. I'm just talking in general though, I don't know how it is in the science world
>>8595152It is, didn't mean to ask it in a demeaning way, just wondering how things working in academic fields, since it's not where I'm (nor am heading to). Good luck OP, don't be disheartened by a failure. Rant it for awhile, and onwards.
>>8595057eyyy I know you. Well done man, love ya
>>8594813I got a rejection on fucking Christmas. Came from Australia so I guess it was the 26th. Reviews were 2/3 good but the journal had like a 10% acceptance rate. Basically if its a top 5 journal you'll need all the reviewers to agree. Even a reject and two accept w/ minor revisions has a high probability of rejection by the HE.
>>8594813Can we read it?
Just got my first journal manuscript accepted with revisions. I had 2 reviewers accept and 1 decline. I guess the editor thought 2/3 was good enough.The revisions are due on Monday. My adviser is reviewing my changes now.I'm kinda worried because I did not make a bunch of the changes they requested. But I have good reasons for not doing them and I explained in my comments to reviewers. I guess we'll see what happens.
>>8597209I regret to inform you that your paper on, "Extraterrestrial Objects and Their Effects on Anal Stimulation" was denied for publication due to use of confidential data used by the United States Air Force.
I had a really great idea for something in my field. It didn't require any ressources either so I worked on it in my free time. When I was half way done after like 4 month of putting every free minute into it, someone else published the same Idea I had. Literally everything was the same. Still mad about this
>>8597209>I did not make a bunch of the changes they requestedThe absolute mettman.
>>8595069what? you can publish it here, anon