31–40 of 56 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any citation?
"In early 1998, Page submitted his first paper, an overview of the PageRank algorithm, to the Special Interest Group on Information Retriviel of the Association for Computing Machinery (SIGIR-ACM). But the paper was rejected. One peer reviewer wrote of the paper, "I found the overall presentation disjointed…. This needs to focus more on the IR issues and less on web analysis." http://books.google.com/books?id=G4KfbOt…
There is a famous rejection, not in CS but in econ, that I know of: Milton Friedman, one of the most influential economists of the 21st century, winner of the John Bates Clark ('51) and Nobel ('76), and preeminent monetarist was fired by the econ department at the University of Wisconsin Madison for being jewish and too data driven. They did not advertise this fact at the department when I was there =P He went 90 min…
err 20th century?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
err 20th century?
I'd say he will be the most influential economist of both centuries. For those who don't who he is, the man is a fantastic public speaker on top of everything and there are a ton of videos on YouTube to get you familiarized.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, and as a result I'm afraid I find the whole joke rather uninteresting. Historical irony is only fun if it's historical . Otherwise it's just fiction. It's easy to imagine a bunch of philistines who unfairly reject a piece of brilliant work. Indeed, plenty of academics imagine that every day. It's a cliché.
Agreed. This reads to me like an attempt by a professor to show that his research being rejected makes him no different from all these other greats in the field. In reality, the vast majority of great papers are acknowledged as such soon after their release.
Some great papers are recognized in manuscript. Some are hailed within the year of their publication. Some are rejected because the reviewer is an archrival of the chairman of the author's department. Some are rejected because the author is of the wrong religion or ethnic group. Some are published to moderate applause and then forgotten about for thirty years, at which point someone accidentally finds them and realizes that the authors were decades ahead of their time. Some would have been immediately given prizes if their authors were half as good at writing as they were at thinking. Some are recognized as interesting, but people with a vested interest in a different viewpoint try to pretend they're not interesting for as long as possible. Some are universally recognized as true but the authors are burnt at the stake anyway...
History is more interesting than fiction. Fiction which doesn't find an audience simply disappears, so it must generally be believable, and it must not make its audience too uncomfortable. History is under no such constraints.
As an uncompensated journal reviewer, I have to say that these look like genuine reviews to me.
If the journal you work for is behind a paywall, why do you do it? I mean it as an honest question, I've always wanted to know why someone would work for free for an organization that works for profit. I understand why the academics submit their papers; it's necessary for career advancement, but why do people review for free?
there is a dangerous tendency to say "someone told me my idea is dumb, but lots of smart people have had their ideas ridiculed and later gone on to success". it's true, many good ideas have been ridiculed by simple minds. however, you never hear about "I had a dumb idea, people laughed at it, and then it went nowhere", and that has (probably) happened far more than the ridicule of world-changing ideas ... so while it…
Silent evidence.
I'm pretty sure this isn't actual rejection notices for these papers, but made up ones in jest.
Yes, and as a result I'm afraid I find the whole joke rather uninteresting. Historical irony is only fun if it's historical . Otherwise it's just fiction. It's easy to imagine a bunch of philistines who unfairly reject a piece of brilliant work. Indeed, plenty of academics imagine that every day. It's a cliché.
there is a dangerous tendency to say "someone told me my idea is dumb, but lots of smart people have had their ideas ridiculed and later gone on to success". it's true, many good ideas have been ridiculed by simple minds. however, you never hear about "I had a dumb idea, people laughed at it, and then it went nowhere", and that has (probably) happened far more than the ridicule of world-changing ideas ... so while it…
Whether we are Kurt Gödel or just some schmuck, I think it's fair to say that we all are surrounded by a fair share of idiots but know at least one person who is capable of understanding anything we understand, assuming we understand it well enough to explain it to them.