5 ms·

I just got my first paper accepted, after 8 months and 2 round of r&r (please clap): the reviewers and editors try very very hard to kill any joy, ambition and

by kome 6y ago

I just got my first paper accepted, after 8 months and 2 round of r&r (please clap): the reviewers and editors try very very hard to kill any joy, ambition and big idea. papers should be written with a lot of accademic mannerism. The goal should be to make the paper clear, but it's not true. It just a style to decide if you are part of the clan or not.

burlesona 6y ago
Congrats! What is your research about? What drew you to this field, and why do you think it’s important?
- kome 6y ago
  Thank you! your comment and interest are quite heartwarming! My research is about household debt: I try to understand why some countries have more private indebtedness than others. Growing up during the American crisis of 2008, and the subsequent global crisis, made me realize that debt can be dangerous, and I wanted to understand what pushes people to borrow money. For a website, I wrote a short introduction to my research: https://progressive.international/blueprint/3596cc12-0128-4f81-9718-bd13356de766-comelli-the-debt-narrative-is-dead-wrong/en https://progressive.international/blueprint/3596cc12-0128-4f... - soon the full research will be published in a peer reviewed journal. :)
  - ArnoVW 6y ago
    Interesting intro. It's even translated into French I noticed. So northern Europe is borrowing three times more (per capita) than the US? That goes against everything I know. One question: did you separate out consumptive credit from mortgages? The amount is so high that it seems to me that it includes mortgages. Because in that case, is it not the cases that it is simply because norther Europe is wealthy and has more expensive houses and more home ownership. Those mortgages are backed by houses, and are a sign of good financial practices, allowing gradual increase of wealth. Where consumptive credit is backed by nothing and is generally a sign of bad financial practices.
    - skybrian 6y ago
      Well, it's unsecured debt, but a credit card is informally backed by your future income. You might say that all personal debt is backed primarily by your future income. Even mortgages are backed primarily by future income and secondarily by the house, and this is why the bank wants to know how much money you make. Whether or not credit card debt results in future wealth depends on what you buy.
      - ArnoVW 6y ago
        I'm not an expert in finance, so don't hold it against me if I'm wrong, but does "backed by" not rather mean that the bank can have your house if you can't make payments? This in opposition to a credit card debt where they have no come-back. Other than the courts and collections agencies. I was under the impression that this was the reason that consumptive loans generally are capped far far lower than mortgages. And have triple their interest rates. While it is true that I can put my university on my credit card, it is very expensive and very rare. I would wager that the majority of these loans are for cars. Which, I agree can create wealth, but it would have been 'better practise' to buy a cheaper car, and switch when that anticipated wealth has been created. Moreover, those cars explain only part of the loans. The rest is 'bigger tv' or the likes. And those do not even create wealth.
        skybrian 6y ago
        It's ambiguous. I'm pointing out some grey areas. When speaking loosely, we can talk about what a loan is "backed by" meaning how people expect to pay it back. Or you could talk about what property secures the loan, legally. Regarding investment, there are startups that got off the ground by running up credit card debt. It's not what I would do, but it's more like investment than consumption. Or you could pay for your car to be repaired using a credit card, and if you need the car to get to work, well...
    - kome 6y ago
      Thank you for taking the time to read! Yes, in the full paper I separated consumer credit from mortgages. In the intro I linked, indeed they are aggregated. Long story short: in northern and continental Europe consumer credit is almost non-existent. Very tiny numbers. Notable exception: the UK. But more mortgages don't necessarily mean more home ownership eh. "Those mortgages are backed by houses, and are a sign of good financial practices, allowing gradual increase of wealth. Where consumptive credit is backed by nothing and is generally a sign of bad financial practices." That's almost my conclusion as well, but I put more emphasis on what social policies encourage you to do, more than on good or bad practices. In the US they really encourage going for consumer credit, also their bankruptcy legislation is more lenient and encouraging a fresh start; while in Europe we are much more draconian with debt.
guicho271828 6y ago
Congraturations on paper acceptance, but joy is very optional in research. Joy is emotional and it clobbers logical insight. Peer review is an attempt to guarantee a steady firm progress. It is a matter of taste --- do you want progress or just want to be comfortable? If you want joy, better to be a SF writer... Still, strong results with good execution are allowed to enjoy some freedom.
- adwn 6y ago
  > [...] but joy is very optional in research. Joy is emotional and it clobbers logical insight. I'm pretty sure OP meant "joy" as in "motivation/enjoyment of one's work", not as in "hedonistic pleasure".
- darkhorse13 6y ago
  Wow, you basically proved the parent comment right by taking the joy out of yours.
  - guicho271828 6y ago
    Actually, there is a good opportunity to be full-on joy mode after acceptance --- Presentation at the conference that follows. You can say as many sketchy things as you want (within caveat) and crave attention. So it is just this basic point --- There is no need to do this in a paper.
tgv 6y ago
TBH, big ideas should not be in a paper, unless you can really prove it. I've read too many papers with grand new theories that hinged on an experiment testing the tiniest of tiny facets. All of these have been forgotten now, even by their creators. Once you have enough experience, know the field inside out, and have gotten a bit of a name, you can write a book or edit a special edition of a journal in which you may set out your ideas.
fancyfredbot 6y ago
The style of academic papers is intended to encourage objectivity I think. All the same I would agree it can indeed obfuscate at times and a more informal style could be both more enjoyable and easier to read.
- rleigh 6y ago
  And this was how papers were written historically. If you go back and read papers from well known researchers from the early 20th century, they can be a delight to read. We have gone down a road of increased formalism and a removal of any character in the name of "objectivity" and "dispassionate impartiality". This is, of course, utter bunk. Researchers are often not objective or impartial about their work, but it's all carefully phrased to be as dry as possible. If you read some older papers, you have the author interjecting with their thoughts and opinions directly in the first person, and it can make for much more compelling reading. So long as the data presented is objective and accurate, I can't say I have much problem with it. Today we use the "discussion" section for this, but it's just not the same. Put it this way, I've fallen asleep reading more papers than I care to admit. But some of those older papers were so enjoyable and interesting to read I'd devour them and go looking for more. Objectivity is of course important, but I think modern publishing has lost something which is also important: the excitement and interest of the authors in their own work.
  - wott 6y ago
    I occasionally read Geography articles from the first half of the XXth century, they are a joy to read, until at least the 50s or 60s. It reads like a book: the vocabulary is very accessible (the few words/concepts which do not belong to the common language are introduced and defined) and while the writing flows pleasantly like a fiction or documentary, it conveys much useful information. The recent ones? They're horrible piles of pretentious jargon, jargon which oscillates between hyper-technical and utter-bullshit. They read like those technical marketing fluff pieces. Philosophico-technocratic verbiage all along; when you're done with it (assuming you didn't give up in despair or anger), you haven't learned anything, basically. Anyway, they usually don't bother really describing concrete things any more, they rather talk about fancy social constructs. The synergy of the Promethean dynamic of the actants of transformative innovation of mountainity. Right... (I made up the example, but from real pieces from my last 2 attempts. I unfortunately can't remember or find the previous one, it was 10 times worse, I wouldn't even have needed to make up this example, I could just have copy-pasted its abstract.) The difference is like between reading a page-turner, and trying to read the latest ISO standard about development methodology in safety-related domains (perfect for falling asleep before the second page).

by kome 6y ago

burlesona 6y ago

Congrats! What is your research about? What drew you to this field, and why do you think it’s important?

kome 6y ago
Thank you! your comment and interest are quite heartwarming! My research is about household debt: I try to understand why some countries have more private indebtedness than others. Growing up during the American crisis of 2008, and the subsequent global crisis, made me realize that debt can be dangerous, and I wanted to understand what pushes people to borrow money. For a website, I wrote a short introduction to my research: https://progressive.international/blueprint/3596cc12-0128-4f81-9718-bd13356de766-comelli-the-debt-narrative-is-dead-wrong/en https://progressive.international/blueprint/3596cc12-0128-4f... - soon the full research will be published in a peer reviewed journal. :)
- ArnoVW 6y ago
  Interesting intro. It's even translated into French I noticed. So northern Europe is borrowing three times more (per capita) than the US? That goes against everything I know. One question: did you separate out consumptive credit from mortgages? The amount is so high that it seems to me that it includes mortgages. Because in that case, is it not the cases that it is simply because norther Europe is wealthy and has more expensive houses and more home ownership. Those mortgages are backed by houses, and are a sign of good financial practices, allowing gradual increase of wealth. Where consumptive credit is backed by nothing and is generally a sign of bad financial practices.
  - skybrian 6y ago
    Well, it's unsecured debt, but a credit card is informally backed by your future income. You might say that all personal debt is backed primarily by your future income. Even mortgages are backed primarily by future income and secondarily by the house, and this is why the bank wants to know how much money you make. Whether or not credit card debt results in future wealth depends on what you buy.
    - ArnoVW 6y ago
      I'm not an expert in finance, so don't hold it against me if I'm wrong, but does "backed by" not rather mean that the bank can have your house if you can't make payments? This in opposition to a credit card debt where they have no come-back. Other than the courts and collections agencies. I was under the impression that this was the reason that consumptive loans generally are capped far far lower than mortgages. And have triple their interest rates. While it is true that I can put my university on my credit card, it is very expensive and very rare. I would wager that the majority of these loans are for cars. Which, I agree can create wealth, but it would have been 'better practise' to buy a cheaper car, and switch when that anticipated wealth has been created. Moreover, those cars explain only part of the loans. The rest is 'bigger tv' or the likes. And those do not even create wealth.
      - skybrian 6y ago
        It's ambiguous. I'm pointing out some grey areas. When speaking loosely, we can talk about what a loan is "backed by" meaning how people expect to pay it back. Or you could talk about what property secures the loan, legally. Regarding investment, there are startups that got off the ground by running up credit card debt. It's not what I would do, but it's more like investment than consumption. Or you could pay for your car to be repaired using a credit card, and if you need the car to get to work, well...
  - kome 6y ago
    Thank you for taking the time to read! Yes, in the full paper I separated consumer credit from mortgages. In the intro I linked, indeed they are aggregated. Long story short: in northern and continental Europe consumer credit is almost non-existent. Very tiny numbers. Notable exception: the UK. But more mortgages don't necessarily mean more home ownership eh. "Those mortgages are backed by houses, and are a sign of good financial practices, allowing gradual increase of wealth. Where consumptive credit is backed by nothing and is generally a sign of bad financial practices." That's almost my conclusion as well, but I put more emphasis on what social policies encourage you to do, more than on good or bad practices. In the US they really encourage going for consumer credit, also their bankruptcy legislation is more lenient and encouraging a fresh start; while in Europe we are much more draconian with debt.

guicho271828 6y ago

Congraturations on paper acceptance, but joy is very optional in research. Joy is emotional and it clobbers logical insight. Peer review is an attempt to guarantee a steady firm progress. It is a matter of taste --- do you want progress or just want to be comfortable? If you want joy, better to be a SF writer... Still, strong results with good execution are allowed to enjoy some freedom.

adwn 6y ago
> [...] but joy is very optional in research. Joy is emotional and it clobbers logical insight. I'm pretty sure OP meant "joy" as in "motivation/enjoyment of one's work", not as in "hedonistic pleasure".
darkhorse13 6y ago
Wow, you basically proved the parent comment right by taking the joy out of yours.
- guicho271828 6y ago
  Actually, there is a good opportunity to be full-on joy mode after acceptance --- Presentation at the conference that follows. You can say as many sketchy things as you want (within caveat) and crave attention. So it is just this basic point --- There is no need to do this in a paper.

tgv 6y ago

TBH, big ideas should not be in a paper, unless you can really prove it. I've read too many papers with grand new theories that hinged on an experiment testing the tiniest of tiny facets. All of these have been forgotten now, even by their creators. Once you have enough experience, know the field inside out, and have gotten a bit of a name, you can write a book or edit a special edition of a journal in which you may set out your ideas.

fancyfredbot 6y ago

The style of academic papers is intended to encourage objectivity I think. All the same I would agree it can indeed obfuscate at times and a more informal style could be both more enjoyable and easier to read.

rleigh 6y ago
And this was how papers were written historically. If you go back and read papers from well known researchers from the early 20th century, they can be a delight to read. We have gone down a road of increased formalism and a removal of any character in the name of "objectivity" and "dispassionate impartiality". This is, of course, utter bunk. Researchers are often not objective or impartial about their work, but it's all carefully phrased to be as dry as possible. If you read some older papers, you have the author interjecting with their thoughts and opinions directly in the first person, and it can make for much more compelling reading. So long as the data presented is objective and accurate, I can't say I have much problem with it. Today we use the "discussion" section for this, but it's just not the same. Put it this way, I've fallen asleep reading more papers than I care to admit. But some of those older papers were so enjoyable and interesting to read I'd devour them and go looking for more. Objectivity is of course important, but I think modern publishing has lost something which is also important: the excitement and interest of the authors in their own work.
- wott 6y ago
  I occasionally read Geography articles from the first half of the XXth century, they are a joy to read, until at least the 50s or 60s. It reads like a book: the vocabulary is very accessible (the few words/concepts which do not belong to the common language are introduced and defined) and while the writing flows pleasantly like a fiction or documentary, it conveys much useful information. The recent ones? They're horrible piles of pretentious jargon, jargon which oscillates between hyper-technical and utter-bullshit. They read like those technical marketing fluff pieces. Philosophico-technocratic verbiage all along; when you're done with it (assuming you didn't give up in despair or anger), you haven't learned anything, basically. Anyway, they usually don't bother really describing concrete things any more, they rather talk about fancy social constructs. The synergy of the Promethean dynamic of the actants of transformative innovation of mountainity. Right... (I made up the example, but from real pieces from my last 2 attempts. I unfortunately can't remember or find the previous one, it was 10 times worse, I wouldn't even have needed to make up this example, I could just have copy-pasted its abstract.) The difference is like between reading a page-turner, and trying to read the latest ISO standard about development methodology in safety-related domains (perfect for falling asleep before the second page).