3 ms·
Excerpt: >As far as my co-authors and I are aware, our ZA paper—which underwent a double-blind peer review—has only received positive reactions. Moreover, the
by emmelaich 4y ago
Excerpt:
>As far as my co-authors and I are aware, our ZA paper—which underwent a double-blind peer review—has only received positive reactions. Moreover, the incontrovertible facts and solid arguments presented in support of the decipherment are such that I would not expect there to be much disagreement about our conclusions
- wl 4y agoYou cut off right before it got interesting. It's more than scholars chafing at the notion that their work might be flawed. It's that nobody other than the reviewers had grappled with the paper yet, making this talk of debate entirely manufactured. > That said, the article in question has only just appeared and begun circulating in the scholarly community. It is too soon for it to have generated the kind of scholarly debate Lawler suggests it has.
- adastra22 4y agoYeah, I had the pleasure of publishing a controversial paper at a conference once. The paper wasn't generally available until the day I presented, and due to IP prior art concerns I didn't circulate it prior to the event. So I personally knew everyone who had read/reviewed it prior to publication. Yet somehow, in the days prior to publication everyone who was anyone in this niche industry had an opinion on this paper, which I KNEW they hadn't read. And most of the "opinions" published were based on their wildly incorrect assumptions of what my work was based on just the abstract, which was on the conference schedule. I would have assumed that prominent, respected researchers in a field would hold off judgement and getting quotes in media until they had at least had the chance to read the freaking paper. Or at least qualify their statements as such. But nope, I sure was naïve to think so.