3 ms·
It sounds like repeating "state-of-the-art", "novel", never before seen, revolutionary new research that will change the entire world, you wouldn't believe how
by newen 6y ago
It sounds like repeating "state-of-the-art", "novel", never before seen, revolutionary new research that will change the entire world, you wouldn't believe how my method beats other baseline methods by huge margins, and you wouldn't believe how this paper will revolutionize the entire field, etc, etc, multiple times in the paper so the bored reviewers don't reject your paper. I'm exaggerating but it's close to the truth. You kind of have to turn your paper in an advertisement of your work to get past the reviewers.
- crazygringo 6y agoGot it, that helps me understand it more. But again, your paper ought to be an advertisement, no? That makes it clear why it matters? That's why there's an abstract, an intro, a conclusion. I have read a lot of writing where I wonder, "yes but what's the point? why does this matter? what's the actual impact here?" So to have that clearly stated is incredibly helpful for all readers -- not just what it does but how much it matters, why and for whom. Writing for a public audience isn't a place for false modesty -- it confuses rather than helps.
- newen 6y agoYou have a good point but I think it’s a matter of degrees than a yes/no situation. There are also other things a researcher is incentivized to do to get past reviewers such as emphasizing only the good points of your algorithm, deemphasizing its downsides, comparing only against current so-so algorithms or baseline algorithms or algorithms a couple of years old instead of the latest state of the art so that your algorithm can look good. As in, even if you propose an algorithm that has new ideas in it that could bear fruit in the future with more refinements, you as a researcher would only hype it up to get past the reviewers.