3 ms·
> Peer in peer-reviewed is a logical coherent and functional definition with answers. What is the definition? If you tell me that, then I might be able to tell
by auggierose 19d ago
> Peer in peer-reviewed is a logical coherent and functional definition with answers.
What is the definition? If you tell me that, then I might be able to tell you if it is logical coherent and functional, I have a PhD in computational logic.
- wokwokwok 19d agoYour (many) replies on this topic are being down voted for a reason; please either post substantive comments or stop.
- auggierose 19d agoYes, for a reason, but not a reasonable reason, but the same reason you have for your comment: you just don’t know any better.
- da_chicken 19d agoAmongst all this rhetorical brush-beating, what were you trying to teach the snakes?
- raverbashing 19d ago> I have a PhD in computational logic. And you don't know how the peer-review system works? Just a hunch but Claude saying your work is "PhD level" does not count
- auggierose 19d agoI know that it doesn't work.
- athrowaway3z 19d agoSomething like this sketch work for you? peer(X, 0) :- founding_peer(X). electorate(T, count<Y>) :- peer(Y, T). support(X, T, count<Y>) :- candidate(X), peer(Y, T), recognizes(Y, X, T+1). peer(X, T+1) :- support(X, T, Votes), electorate(T, Total), 2 * Votes > Total.
- auggierose 19d agoStill waiting for a definition. People giving nonsense reviews is a feature of the peer review system though, yes.
- athrowaway3z 19d agoI want to ensure your PhD is actually from somebody who is acknowledged in the system of peers I bought into, before I want to risk wasting more of my time defining and explain while guessing at your ability to parse and understand them.
- auggierose 19d agoOr you could just give me a sensible definition.