/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #11365089

6KiB, 227x222, dr rajesh phd.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Thu 06 Feb 21:40:47 2020 No.11365089 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>11365128 >>11365173 >>11365492 >>11366990 >>11367063

>"This manuscript requires extensive editing of the English language"
>Proceeds to make commentaries in garbled English while also showing they didn't understand half the shit you've wrote
Peer review is a fucking joke.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 06 Feb 2020 21:47:30 No.11365106 Report

Quoted By:

Show us the paper/editor's response or there's nothing to talk about

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 06 Feb 2020 21:58:41 No.11365128 Report

Quoted By: >>11365139 >>11366329

>>11365089
>Discuss related articles that both support and contradict my hypothesis, using it to motivate why my specific paper is important for clarity on the matter
>Advisor tells me to remove all mention of papers contradicting my hypotheses because you should not contradict yourself in your paper
Is he right?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 06 Feb 2020 22:02:25 No.11365139 Report

Quoted By: >>11365539 >>11366957

>>11365128
He is, sadly. Anything that hurts your hypotheses and conclusions will get you shot down.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 06 Feb 2020 22:14:20 No.11365173 Report

Quoted By:

>>11365089
>*dr pajeet phd

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 07 Feb 2020 00:21:59 No.11365492 Report

Quoted By: >>11365520

>>11365089
> you've wrote

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 07 Feb 2020 00:34:06 No.11365520 Report

Quoted By: >>11365816

>>11365492
Did he miss the full stop?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 07 Feb 2020 00:37:52 No.11365531 Report

Quoted By:

Coronavirus in India yet?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 07 Feb 2020 00:40:21 No.11365539 Report

Quoted By: >>11365560 >>11365580 >>11365601

>>11365139
So, science isn't about the Truth, about what is and is not, about how the world works, but a popularity contest.

Was it always like that, or is the past romanticised ?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 07 Feb 2020 00:50:21 No.11365560 Report

Quoted By:

>>11365539
some parts of the past are objectively better, others are not.
like working antibiotics vs cancer treament,

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 07 Feb 2020 01:01:06 No.11365580 Report

Quoted By:

>>11365539
lol
>The TRUTH

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 07 Feb 2020 01:08:32 No.11365601 Report

Quoted By:

>>11365539
papers were much better in the past before we became obsessed with scientific humility and passive voice
anything before the 60s really

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 07 Feb 2020 02:58:47 No.11365816 Report

Quoted By: >>11365834

>>11365520
>he
pajeet is right. you can't event make a shitpost without it requiring extensive editing, let alone a manuscript. check the verb forms of irregular verbs: write/wrote/written. go/went/gone. shit/shit/shit. (AE)

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 07 Feb 2020 03:00:53 No.11365821 Report

Quoted By:

Does he shit outside?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO nagoorcorejava.gif, 153KiB, 849x458

Anonymous Fri 07 Feb 2020 03:02:17 No.11365829 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 07 Feb 2020 03:07:39 No.11365834 Report

Quoted By: >>11365935 >>11366061

>>11365816
"What you've wrote" is acceptable even if "what you've written" or "what you wrote" are better form, but "What you written" is a big nono.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 07 Feb 2020 04:06:09 No.11365935 Report

Quoted By: >>11366061

>>11365834
no
"wrote" is not the past participle of "write"
that's the equivalent of saying "what you've took," "what you've stole" or "what you've did."

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 07 Feb 2020 05:22:38 No.11366061 Report

Quoted By:

>>11365935
>>11365834
Before any examples are posted, please note that I have wrote was used back in the 1800s, but it's not considered correct in modern English.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 07 Feb 2020 10:02:12 No.11366329 Report

Quoted By: >>11366982

>>11365128

He is right in that you shouldn't contradict yourself in the paper.
He is not right in suggesting that this should therefore remove the papers that contradict your hypothesis.

Either incorporate the new evidence into your hypothesis, or refute it. Do not present two contradictory truths.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 07 Feb 2020 18:15:20 No.11366957 Report

Quoted By: >>11367058 >>11367148

>>11365139
Lol, this is stupid. What if I contradict the well-established theory and I explain why I dare to do so?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 07 Feb 2020 18:27:42 No.11366982 Report

Quoted By: >>11367122

>>11366329
>Do not present two contradictory truths.
Can I tell that it's rather A hypothesis or it's B hypothesis and I explain what experiments should be performed to distinguish which one it is?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1578916195449..png, 398KiB, 2518x1124

Anonymous Fri 07 Feb 2020 18:33:32 No.11366990 Report

Quoted By:

>>11365089
>Peer review is a fucking joke.
It is. For many causes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8D_-_4RWn8

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 07 Feb 2020 19:07:32 No.11367058 Report

Quoted By:

>>11366957
If you do a good job explaining it then your chances are probably better but even then peer review is still a coin toss and your paper can end up in the hands of some boomer retard that will turn you down for the most meaningless shit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 07 Feb 2020 19:14:10 No.11367063 Report

Quoted By: >>11367105

>>11365089
There are journals that will accept any paper without peer review, if only you pay them something like $500 in "author submission fee". Surely that is your way out. Of course noone in their right mind would take your paper seriously, but you can still make it an item in your publication list. Lots of people do that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 07 Feb 2020 19:37:57 No.11367105 Report

Quoted By:

>>11367063
That much is actually true. But apparently you chose a crappy journal which employs crappy referees. Whereas if you have a good paper, you ought to send it to a good journal that sends it to competent reviewers. With the added bonus that if the review happens to be crap anyway, then you can complain to the editor who is handling your paper, and if you are right, you will get another go with a replacement referee.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 07 Feb 2020 19:43:25 No.11367122 Report

Quoted By: >>11367139

>>11366982
Sure if it was a significant work to it narrow down to two hypotheses. If there were two possibilities to begin with, then you contributed nothing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 07 Feb 2020 19:47:37 No.11367139 Report

Quoted By: >>11367670

>>11367122
What if the possibilities are "the jews conspired and corrupted the science" and "science got corrupted by natural reasons because retards are also allowed to become scientists"?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 07 Feb 2020 19:53:11 No.11367148 Report

Quoted By: >>11367154

>>11366957
If you prove an well-established theory wrong then you are a superhero. But you will get extra scrutiny, especially after publication, so you better be extra careful.
Peer reviewers wont reproduce your experiment. They only care if given the results you presented if your conclusion consistent. They also care about the readability of the paper and most importantly, proper use of the Oxford comma.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 07 Feb 2020 19:55:40 No.11367154 Report

Quoted By:

>>11367148
at first I was sceptical, but then
>and most importantly, proper use of the Oxford comma.
I laughed.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 07 Feb 2020 20:18:02 No.11367195 Report

Quoted By: >>11367221 >>11367503

>working with my group, all but me are indian
>questions are extremely easy and opinion based
>they literally Google the question and copypaste an answer
Why do they do this?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 07 Feb 2020 20:31:30 No.11367221 Report

Quoted By:

>>11367195
for a diploma, of course

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 4174418_0.jpg, 52KiB, 1200x630

Anonymous Fri 07 Feb 2020 22:47:51 No.11367503 Report

Quoted By:

>>11367195
nonwhites cant into opinion that why kikes want them so much

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 08 Feb 2020 00:02:56 No.11367670 Report

Quoted By: >>11367688

>>11367139
I'm pretty sure it's both.
As in, retards are Evil and Evil is retarded.

Just check the average IQ of prison-dwellers, for instance.
And kikes' is what, 90, 95.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 08 Feb 2020 00:09:33 No.11367688 Report

Quoted By:

>>11367670
True, true, but you know it can't be published any way. Not in academic literature. No matter how accurate the proof is.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches