/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9737562]

Why is the venue of publication of a paper "more important" than its content? Not talking about papers no one read, talking about papers everyone read but won't acknowledge because they don't like the webiste where they DLed the PDF.

pic related:
>The General Relevance of the Modified Cosmological Model
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1712.0598

Also, now is a good time to get into physics because the cull is going to leave a lot of job openings.

[Anonymous No.9737570]

>>9737562
>why are you burning the entire family of every arXiv employee at the stake?
>please note
>I do not provide feedback or detailed reviews

[Anonymous No.9737846]

>>9737562
it's not more important

but have you seen the types of bullshit that tier 3 journals publish?

[Anonymous No.9737847]

>>9737846
put another way, we wouldn't have "prestigious" journals if shitty ones didn't exist.

[Anonymous No.9737858]

>>9737846
I've never read an unimportant paper, except on arXiv, so no.

>it's not more important
Are you sure? It doesn't seem that way to me. It seems like the egofags are saying, "If he doesn't at least put his paper in a tier 3 journal which is chock full of bullshit, where we could then argue that his paper is likewise bullshit, then we will not recognize his many, many, many great discoveries which we were all desperately trying to discover ourselves but were unable to do so because we're faggots who think making the research publishable is more important than making it successful." So, really, if the research was more important than the publication venue, then the recognition of my contributions wouldn't be stalled for not appearing in at least a tier 3 journal along side 50 bullshit papers. Since the whole thing is bottlenecked on the publication status, I think that means, unequivocally, that the publication venue is "more important" than the actual scientific contribution... in the standards of the doyens of science that we have today.

[Anonymous No.9737868]

>The truth about evolution
>The truth about climate change
>On the Riemann Zeta function

[Anonymous No.9737872]

>>9737868
My one about the Riemann hypothesis is another good example that demonstrates how the publication venue is more important than the actual contribution. You're supposed to get $1M for solving that problem (+caveats), but I don't qualify because I published in a venue that they don't like. So for that problem... the truth is that no one gives a fuck about the problem being solved, they only care if some cabal publisher agrees to support you.

also, thanks buddy :-)

Same thing for pic related, everyone at CERN knows that the particle they found in 2012 has spin-1, but they all pretend like it doesn't because no one wrote that in an acceptable journal yet. Bunch of cunts if you ask me.

[Anonymous No.9737875]

>>9737872
Don't know if your trying to troll or what, but if not. Seek help you delusional faggot.

[Anonymous No.9737876]

>>9737875
It's going to be sweeter for me when I burn your family to death (or the family of the engineer that wrote you) than it was for you to make that comment.

[Anonymous No.9737877]

>>9737876
Pfft calm down edge mcedge. Pschyzos belong on >>>/x/. Lucky for you mods are faggots that think any thing "sciency" is on topic even if you have been spamming this shit for quite some time. Just take your meds before you start shitting all over the place after being banned eventually.

[Anonymous No.9737878]

>>9737562
If the venue is not peer reviewing, I won't even bother reading that shit. That is an important quality control that saves me a lot of work during reading, otherwise I have to do the reviewers job in parallel to mine. E.g., most papers are not read back to back, but only the critical parts to find out whether the approach is relevant. With peer review I know that somebody checked that the technical parts do what the introduction describes.

Beyond that it is highly dependent on your field. In CS top venues are sometimes to focused to the current hot shit or prefer some methods over others because the PC is not neutral. So researchers will not look down on "lower" venues. The problem is of course that university administrators do not know that and still demand that you publish there. So your answer is that administration is retarded.

[Anonymous No.9737889]

>>9737877
You will suffer, or your creator will

>>9737878
>won't even bother reading
irrelevant, see thread topic: "Not talking about papers no one read, talking about papers everyone read but won't acknowledge"

>With peer review I know that somebody checked that the technical parts do what the introduction describes.
Then tell me, what is called the irreproducibility crisis? Peer review doesn't mean shit. Beyiond irreproducibilty, this has been demonstrated many times with people passing bullshit papers through peer review.

>So your answer is that administration is retarded.
yes

[Anonymous No.9737901]

>>9737889
Top venues like POPL require you to submit your artifacts so the reviewers can check that your results are reproducable. It is about trust and a "POPL evaluated artifact" sticker on the paper increases my trust in it.

Sure that is CS specific, but top venues increase my trust because they have extra mechanisms and I know that the reviewers know what they are doing - some venues started to forbid subreviewing so the PC is actually the one evaluating your paper, not a chinese postdoc.

[Anonymous No.9737939]

>>9737889
> Then tell me, what is called the irreproducibility crisis? Peer review doesn't mean shit.

You don't understand what peer review is. Peer review is the basic check of "this paper is sensible and coherent, and the methodology is appropriate." That's all. It's a sanity check. It says nothing about if the results are correct, only that the people who wrote the paper did sensible things that can lead to correct results.

This is why people dismiss papers that can't pass peer review. It is the lowest bar possible. "You claim this is physics? Let's see if physicists agree."

[The Lord No.9738317]

>>9737939
>That's all. It's a sanity check.
You are the one who doesn't understand what it is, obviously. It's an arbitrary and capricious censorship criterion used to implement the political aspirations of stodgy codgers who own and make money off the journals. Sometimes that might do what you said, but that is only incidental.
>"You claim this is physics? Let's see if physicists agree."
More like, "You claim this is physics? Let's see if physicists want to fuck you over."

[Anonymous No.9738425]

This is a good thread. Thanks, OP. I appreciate the laugh.

[The Lord No.9738532]

>>9738425
I appreciate you going on record as someone whose family should be burned. Otherwise I might not have noticed.

[Anonymous No.9738658]

>>9737562
I wish I had the determination in life you show with this Modified Cosmological Model shitposting.

[Anonymous No.9738733]

>>9738658
Schizophrenia made 1 guy build a whole OS.

[The Lord No.9739642]

>>9737939
>"You claim this is physics? Let's see if physicists agree."
I will refute this, obviously false, claim by pointing out that reviewers will reject papers based on the tone of the prose in the paper, and also on the stylistic structure of the paper. Neither of those things have the slightest bit to do with whether or not the content of the paper "is physics."

[Anonymous No.9739659]

>>9737858
>we're faggots who think making the research publishable is more important than making it successful
your problem is you think these are opposites.

here's an interesting read for you. if the research is solid it will eventually be known.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20170328-statistician-proves-gaussian-correlation-inequality/

think of publishing as a part of a conversation with the community. publishing in a top journal just means your work is vetted and it's less likely to be a waste of peoples' time to painstakingly slog through your paper.

new york city is filled with bums on street corners with great insights who are frustrated that no one will listen to them. and they all invariably consider themselves above the hard work of proving their results to skeptics.

[The Lord No.9739686]

>>9739659
>your problem is you think these are opposites.
Your problem is that you think that I think they are opposites when nothing I wrote supports that idea, at all.

You, I assume, would be a reviewer who could read my paper and then reject it as "not being physics" even when nothing I put into the paper would support that. The problem is that you (people like you) see whatever you want to see, regardless of the objective reality, probably especially if lets you make statements of your own superiority, i.e.: "He thinks something stupid that no reasonable person, such as me, ahem, cough cough, would ever think on account of my not being a brainlets... like he is based on my complete mischaracterization of what he wrote." Then when reviewers exhibit that despicable behavior which which you have so perfectly demonstrated in your stupid comment, and they choose to see that my paper sucks, then I am penalized for their poor comprehension and inferiority complex.

[The Lord No.9739711]

>ahem, cough cough

[Anonymous No.9739807]

>>9739686
>all that strawmanning
as i said before, new york city is filled with bums on street corners with great insights who are frustrated that no one will listen to them. and they all invariably consider themselves above the hard work of proving their results to skeptics.

they absolve themselves of the responsibility of explaining their claims in a way others can understand, or providing any sort of proof whatsoever, by invoking some academic conspiracy boogeyman

[Anonymous No.9739836]

>>9737872
dude you're basically the PERFECT example of why people don't trust articles that haven't gone through peer review

[The Lord No.9739846]

>>9739807
>>9739807
There is not a single strawman in there. A strawman is where I invent something you didn't say and then argue against it. Red herring is probably what you were looking for, but even that is a type of fallacious argument and I didn't make an argument. I made a statement. You absolute fucking idiot. Kill yourself.

[The Lord No.9739854]

>>9739836
you're the perfect example of someone who is going to be writhing in agony and wishing they would have just gone to sleep instead of clicking post again

[Anonymous No.9739933]

>>9739846
>A strawman is where I invent something you didn't say and then argue against it.

Yes, such as in >>9739686 where you say:
>You, I assume, would be a reviewer who could read my paper and then reject it as "not being physics" even when nothing I put into the paper would support that.
> i.e.: "He thinks something stupid that no reasonable person, such as me, ahem, cough cough, would ever think on account of my not being a brainlets... "
I said none of this. Hence by your own definition you are strawmanning.

>I didn't make an argument. I made a statement.
"I-I'm JUST SAYING." All that equivocation. Sad.

You're not on /pol/ or /x/ anymore, boy. We know how to read here. Go back there.

[The Lord No.9740092]

>>9739933
You fucking idiot. I didn't argue against that all. I said (parenthetically) that people like you are type of people of who would say that, and, even then, I didn't argue against it all. Ergo, it's a statement, not an argument. Do you even know what "i.e." means, you moron?

Just like you chose to say that I think those two things are opposites when I wrote no such thing, now that you need to see an argument to avoid acknowledging your own stupidity, you are choosing to see an argument where there is none. You are so fucking stupid, you disgust me. If you think I made an argument, then copy and paste it into your comment, you cretin. You lowest form of life, you disgust me and I want to exterminate your race of feebleminded heathens. I will bash the brains of the children in your family. I will round up everyone with whom you ever posed for a smiling Christmas photo and make them hate you, before I kill them, for what I do to them on account of my hate for you. I swear, I will kill you. If you are a bot, I will kill your creator. You will rue the day, you disgusting piece of bacterial shit. Kill yourself.

>dat equivocation
"I don't understand what an argument is so everything is an argument."

>boy
"I got riled one time when someone called me boy so now I call people that when I need to distract from my idiocy."

[The Lord No.9740104]

>>9740092
*at all
*at all

[Anonymous No.9740234]

>>9737876
Who are you? What's going on with you?

[The Lord No.9740342]

>>9740234
http://www.vixra.org/author/jonathan_w_tooker
I'm waiting for the scientific establishment to praise me by name for my many great contributions to science and mathematics.

[Anonymous No.9740346]

Your papers look like trash to me

[Anonymous No.9741112]

>>9739854
Oh shit. Witness protection.

[The Lord No.9741122]

>>9740346
Which part of the factual content of the which papers seems like trash to you?
Your family and close friends seem like trash to me, I will put you in the incinerator.

[Anonymous No.9741155]

>>9741122
I'm not >>9740346, but you have a paper which is based on the assumption that spin eigenfunctions are non-orthogonal. The angular momentum operator is hermitian, so the spin eigenfunctions are orthogonal. This is a mistake I would expect from a clueless undergrad, not someone who wants to be taken seriously as a researcher.

You're a clueless amateur and your papers are nonsense, that's why no one wants to read them.

[The Lord No.9741270]

>>9741155
You are a fucking retard. The paper is not based on that assumption at all. The paper is based on the known non-existence of any spin eigenfunctions written in closed analytic form, and (implied) also the possible existence of spin operators other than ones in common usage today. If you had a scientific bone in your body, you would have noticed that. This absolutely erudite work
>On Bell's Inequality
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1312.0173
shows that, when spin functions are not orthonormal, i.e.: when they are Dirac orthonormal, then one recovers the extremal limit wherein local hidden variables are always allowed.

It does not say "spin eigenfucntions aren't orthonormal" which is what you have chosen, apparently, to see. It says, (paraphrased in long form) that since the eigenfunctions are still missing, and quantum mechanics is an incomplete theory, and we recover this singular, extremal, intuitive result in the alternate formulation, perhaps alternate formulations should receive more attention. And I tell you this: if Nature does have local hidden variables then spin operators being Hermitian isn't going to make them disappear. It will go in the other direction where the local hidden variables in Nature make the Hermitian spin operators disappear.

Everything I wrote in the paper is correct. It is absolutely scholarly to consider the limit considered. Kill yourself.

[The Lord No.9741284]

>>9741155
Also, no one ever came up with a good explanation for why the angular momentum operator is also the spin operator beyond that agrees with experiment. Therefore, one might wish to consider spin operators other than the angular momentum operator with better philosophical underpinnings. Choosing L as S has no philosophical motivations at all. It was a guess to begin with, rising nearly but not quite to the level of fudge, and my result suggests that there is at least one good reason to keep guessing for a better spin operator.

[Anonymous No.9741286]

>describing your own work as a "tour de force"

[Anonymous No.9741296]

>it's another vixra crank episode

[The Lord No.9741322]

>>9741286
>>9741296
>being you

[Anonymous No.9741849]

>>9741284
>Also, no one ever came up with a good explanation for why the angular momentum operator is also the spin operator beyond that agrees with experiment.
So you're saying that if we just ignore over half a century of experiments confirming current theory, yours might have a shot.

Also, spin has literally been demonstrated to be angular momentum. Get your head out of your ass and just accept that you're wrong.

You need a better hobby. And probably medication.

[Anonymous No.9741858]

>>9737562
As soon as I saw the thumbnail, I knew it was you.

The arXiv post is self-explanatory.
There are 3 types of publications.
1) "Nature" or similar. They have a track record of rejecting nonsense. If the editors aren't sure, they'll ask someone with expertise in the field to give an opinion and they'll make their decision based on their feedback.
Passing peer-review is not a guarantee of quality, but it's the way to bet.

2) Non-peer reviewed. Publish anything. A lot of on-line sites are like this because "printing" doesn't cost them anything.
It sounds like arXiv is trying to apply at least SOME control. If you print any old junk, readers will recognize you're worthless and stop coming.
3) "Vanity" journals which make their money by forcing the author to pay. I saw a list of them recently. There are a lot. Despite impressive names, they're scams and no one pays the slightest attention to articles printed therein.

The whole purpose of editors and journals is supposed to separate the wheat from the chaff so readers don't have to wade through nonsense.
Consider fiction. You buy a book from Random House, you expect it's been edited, gone over, proofread, spell-checked, and has at least SOME literary quality. Someone thought it was good enough that the publisher will turn a profit on it.
Some people self-publish direct to Amazon. Sometimes it works. "The Martian". But most self-published books are no better than mediocre fan-fiction.

Most of us don't want to waste time finding the flaw in someone's "perpetual motion" machine with 5,000 gears and flywheels. The flaw is in there somewhere.
Likewise, the Clay Institute isn't going to go through your proof of the Riemann hypothesis unless you've already convinced a couple of respected mathematicians.

You are not going to be recognized as a unsung genius by posting in 3rd rate places and no amount of bitching on 4Chan is going to change that.

[Anonymous No.9741863]

>>9741858
the martian doesnt deserve any of the success it got, though

[Anonymous No.9741882]

>>9740342
He's lying. Those papers are too good for the autistic brainlet sperging itt to have written them. I'd need to see some proof before I waste time giving my honest thoughts on then.

[Anonymous No.9741893]

I like how OP, in the very same thread, complains
1. That people don't read his papers
2. That people who read his papers say it's garbage

Then claims that people won't allow his papers to be published in a prestigious journal because they haven't been published in a prestigious journal, and that this is the reason people say his papers are garbage.

Not once does he consider the possibility that his papers are garbage.

[Anonymous No.9741968]

>>9740234
He's schizophrenic, and would probably be the next mass shooter if he didn't live in an area where they don't allow the mentally ill to have guns.

[sage goes in all fields No.9741981]

Surely you can't take an e-print venue that publishes this seriously.

[Anonymous No.9742002]

This is hilarious

[Anonymous No.9742008]

>>9741981
pre-print server =/= e-print journal

[The Lord No.9742023]

>>9741981
I think a faggot is the kind of person who prioritizes the website that the PDF gets DLed from over the content of the PDF.


>>9741893
>I like how OP, in the very same thread, complains
>That people don't read his papers
If I had complained that then surely you would have been able to quote me saying nay such thing. However, since I said no such thing, you have only demonstrated your poor reading comprehension. Also.. see the thread topic which specifies papers that were read, and then kill yourself.

>claims that people won't allow his papers to be published in a prestigious journal because they haven't been published in a prestigious journal
Again, I said no such thing. Just because it would let make a good point if I did say or imply something like that, that doesn't make it so. There is an objective reality that exists beyond your infantilism and you should try to pay more attention to it


>>9741858
>Passing peer-review is not a guarantee of quality
I am detecting brain activity in your post

>Clay Institute isn't going to go through your proof of the Riemann hypothesis unless you've already convinced a couple of respected mathematicians.
you seem very smart to me

>You are not going to be recognized as a unsung genius by posting in 3rd rate places
I will be recognized.


>>9741849
>So you're saying that if we just ignore over half a century of experiments confirming current theory, yours might have a shot.
I'm saying since the operators have not been proved to be unique, there might be another formulation which still makes physical predictions

>spin has literally been demonstrated to be angular momentum.
this is true, but my comment pertained to orbital angular momentum. When we say "the angular momentum operator" that is simply brief for "the orbital angular momentum operator." If you had a clue about quantum mechanics, you would know that. And also, you would know that spin angular momentum is not orbital angular momentum.

[Anonymous No.9742032]

>>9742023
>If you had a clue about quantum mechanics, you would know that. And also, you would know that spin angular momentum is not orbital angular momentum.
Lol. I'd say I know more QM than you, but that's not a very high bar to pass. The point is that all these angular momentum operators function the same way.

You're just imagining loopholes from your flawed understanding of physics.

Get help, you need it.

[The Lord No.9742155]

>>9742032
>You're just imagining loopholes from your flawed understanding of physics.
it's not an imagined loophole dipshit; it's a real loophole that I noticed: spin angular momentum, despite your vastly superior understanding of QM, is not orbital angular momentum. There is a real loophole there, not an imagined one, and I showed how that loop hole doesn't just allow local hidden variables, it leads to the singularly extremal case of Bell's inequality in which local hidden variables are always allowed.

[The Lord No.9742170]

>>9742032
>>9742155
...and since spin angular momentum is not orbital angular momnetum, the spin operator is not a priori constrained to be the orbital angular momentum operator. That is an irrefutable loophole. I am not a world-class expert in QM though I do have a world-class grasp on the rudiments of the theory, which something you are lacking. Therefore, you probably don't understand it as well as you think you do.

[Anonymous No.9742287]

>>9741270
>word vomit
no I don't think you know anything about what you are saying

[The Lord No.9742385]

>>9742287
>I don't think
i bet not. you should try it.

[Anonymous No.9742414]

>>9742170
If you had any sort of legitimacy, someone with credentials would've listened to you by now.

[The Lord No.9742423]

>>9742414
no shit, that's probably how they did those experiments and analysis of old data around 2012/2013 which verified my theory.

[Anonymous No.9742679]

>>9742423
Stop making shit up. You're embarrassing yourself.

[Anonymous No.9742848]

>>9742385
your work is trash and you should be ashamed

[The Lord No.9743142]

>>9742679
proof is in the pudding, documented at the end of
>Infinitely Complex Topology Changes with Quaternions and Torsion
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1505.0131

[Anonymous No.9743336]

>>9742002
Mathematicians will never have a response to that question.

[Anonymous No.9743349]

Judging websites by the worst content they host is a heuristic, you autistic mongrel.

no one has the time to read everything in front of them to judge whether or not it was worth reading. they place that task on moderators and editors to filter the good content from the bad, so they can focus on material that is -hopefully- worthwhile instead of deciding if something is worthwhile or not.

[The Lord No.9744658]

>>9743349
>they place that task on moderators and editors to filter the good content from the bad, so they can focus on material that is -hopefully- worthwhile instead of deciding if something is worthwhile or not.
Yeah, but sometimes someone doesn't go through the moderators, and emails his paper to thousands of people, and lots of them read it and see the obvious high quality, but then pretent like they didn't read it, or that they didn't see the obvious scholarly merit, because they got it direct in their email instead of indirect through a moderator. Pretty much what I made the thread about.

[Anonymous No.9745143]

>>9744658
none of them read the paper moron

[The Lord No.9745285]

>>9745143
that might be true, but someone did read it, and they are not responding to it in a fashion that might be considered reasonable.

[Anonymous No.9745293]

>>9745285
how do you know?

[Anonymous No.9745350]

What good is a filter if namefags don't even keep their names on

[The Lord No.9745446]

>>9745293
>how do you know?
A wise man knows nothing of course, but I suspect this is the cast as strongly as one can suspect something on account of the experiments I suggested being carried out right after I suggested them. Among other results, see:
>>9743142

[Anonymous No.9745451]

>>9745446
the fact that you were thinking along similar lines is not evidence they actually read your paper in fact, I'd argue that it's evidence they DIDN'T read your paper, because then they can claim they didn't plagiarize you

[The Lord No.9746662]

>>9745451
Someone carrying out the experiments I suggested is evidence of my papers being read. Having a team of reverse of engineers read my papers and then document them for another team of engineers to actually engineer my concept might have some legal implications, but it does not have the philosophical implication that no one read my paper. Quite the opposite, actually.

[Anonymous No.9746896]

>>9737562
Journal prestige is bullshit, but this thread is fucking ridiculous trite complete with a namefag and obvious baiting.

[Anonymous No.9746902]

>>9746662
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideas_of_reference_and_delusions_of_reference

[Anonymous No.9746904]

>>9746896
Not bait, this is a real schizophrenic person.

[Anonymous No.9747163]

>>9746662
No believes you, so what is the point of this?

[Anonymous No.9747169]

OP please include a response to the Dunning-Kruger effect next time.

It’s mandatory for anyone reading your paper

[The Lord No.9747392]

>>9747169
dunning kruger applies to those whose estimations of themselves rely on their subjective opinions of themselves as opposed to some objective accomplishments which document their real place on the competence spectrum. If you have these type of accomplishments, it doesn't matter what your opinion is, but very few people have these kinds of accomplishments.

[Anonymous No.9747454]

>>9737858
If you can't get a single journal to accept your paper, or even manage to put it on the arXiv, it almost certainly isn't worth reading. At the end of the day, it is the content of the paper that matters, but this isn't independent of the publishability; there is a strong correlation between publishability and quality.

[The Lord No.9748003]

>>9747454
pretty much, and it always the outliers that push things forward.