[deleted]
Getting a paper accepted
131–135 of 135 posts
Re: Getting a paper accepted
#132[dead]
Re: Getting a paper accepted
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
This whole take is embarrassingly ignorant and no one with the credentials has the time to check you. We need people to do real thinking and they need to ignore you.
I don't understand why took the time to leave (three?) personal attacks, rather than just provide your perspective? I'm willing to acknowledge that my opinion has limitations (I think it mainly applies to CS-adjacent fields with empirical performance evaluations, and where experiments can easily be independently verified). I would be interested to hear other perspectives.
It really upsets me when i see this kind of hollow rhetoric, which is specifically designed to confuse, and to stear people away from learning and instead make them sceptical of the most honest pursuers of truth.
Re: Getting a paper accepted
#134Academics seem to have this fixation on "ideas": > And it’s not just a pace thing, there’s a threshold of clarity that divides learned nothing from got at least one new idea. But these days, ideas are quite cheap: in my experience, most researchers have more ideas than students to work on them. Many papers can fit their "core idea" in a tweet or two, and in many cases someone has already tweeted the idea in one form…
I think in some ways science has been co-opted by careerists who try to minmax output to accelerate their careers. Being idea obsessed is part of this. It’s much easier to get a paper published that’s on the hype train as opposed to a paper that challenges some idea. Publications justify grant money, grant money justifies more people and more power, more power justifies promotions. And if you talk with early career s…
Tell me what the careeerists have done to hurt your nonexistant novel approach to any hard problems in science.
Re: Getting a paper accepted
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
This whole take is embarrassingly ignorant and no one with the credentials has the time to check you. We need people to do real thinking and they need to ignore you.
I don't understand why took the time to leave (three?) personal attacks, rather than just provide your perspective? I'm willing to acknowledge that my opinion has limitations (I think it mainly applies to CS-adjacent fields with empirical performance evaluations, and where experiments can easily be independently verified). I would be interested to hear other perspectives.
None of this attack was personal, that is wrong. All was deserved. Complaining about academia without any specifics is one of the dumbest and most well funded and prominent memes in the pseudo intellectual podcast sphere today.