2 ms·
The rejections include everything from: -reviewers not liking the name of the paper (politics/subjectivity at its worst...I think the journal was trying to tak
by andrepd 7y ago
The rejections include everything from:
-reviewers not liking the name of the paper (politics/subjectivity at its worst...I think the journal was trying to take an active role in the propagation of the prevailing terms regarding the subject matter)
Not a rejection then, just a suggestion to change a shitty and confusing title to a better one. Do that and you're golden.
-Not the right journal for the topic (quasi-subjective and potentially political)
How is "your research is not into the topic of this journal" a "political" opinion?
- throwaway_law 7y ago>How is "your research is not into the topic of this journal" a "political" opinion? Are you familiar at all with the 8 papers that were rejected and went on to win the Nobel Prize? Example: Fermi's paper on weak interaction...rejected by Nature. The rejection was on the basis "to far removed from reality to be of interest to readers", it was only the discovery of 1 of the 4 fundamental forces of nature. It appears the rejection on this basis are often just a form rejection in many cases that allows the journal to reject a paper outright rather than provide any explanation/feedback. Then again I suppose nothing like a reviewer being able to point to a Nobel Prize winner and chuckle to themselves that this person isn't even smart enough to identify the proper journal to publish their work in.