wait was that the whole review because if so that really is pretty epic.
-
-
-
There was more, but that's the only bit I remember :).
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Yep, I got one like that too. But it was rejected. For the next version we did improve the work but also we made the explanation of it less good so it seemed less obvious.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@DRMacIver wrote a good post about this problem a while back: https://www.drmaciver.com/2018/02/novelty-requires-explanation/ … -
I've heard this ancedote from
@EdwinBrady before and I just had to double check it wasn't what prompted me to write that post. ;-) (it wasn't. The timeline doesn't work out - the post is from a few months earlier) - 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Captain Obvious in research are the best scientists
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
We had a similar review saying that “there must be some obscure Russian paper where the idea was developed in 70s”. The paper was rejected, but for the best: it is now published in a much better journal
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I can imagine a meme of the covers of famous papers with red ink stating how obvious and uninteresting they are.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.