Timeline for answer to Should I review for the second time a paper that I already reviewed and recommended for acceptance in another journal? by Xander Henderson
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 22, 2025 at 23:48 | comment | added | Dave L Renfro | fractal zeta functions to the Riemann hypothesis --- Just now getting back to something I was going to mention earlier but forgot ... You might be amused to know that in the mid 1990s I looked at some literature in this area (e.g. this 1991 paper by Lapidus, and yes I know he was your Ph.D. adviser) primarily for bits and pieces of things about Minkowski dimension, which I was interested in due to some parallels between Minkowski & packing dimensions and a couple of types of "lim-inf" porosity notions I was studying. | |
| Jan 15, 2025 at 8:50 | comment | added | DonQuiKong | @XanderHenderson the probability part was a joke/teasing. For a non-mathematician the example read like "a paper about flabberbubbling probably doesn't fit the journal about bubblerflubbing" and it could have been anything from totally incompatible to an insider joke between neighboring fields. | |
| Jan 14, 2025 at 20:35 | comment | added | Xander Henderson | @DaveLRenfro You know, I have been working in that direction, though with an helicopter instead of a hot air balloon. Would you be interested in a research collaboration? :P | |
| Jan 14, 2025 at 20:30 | comment | added | Dave L Renfro | I guess it could be appropriate if one is describing an experiment that involved smashing ceramics above a lake (perhaps while sitting in a hot air balloon's weaved basket) and a large weaved basket had been placed underwater to catch the falling pieces. | |
| Jan 14, 2025 at 20:22 | comment | added | Xander Henderson | @DaveLRenfro Love it! | |
| Jan 14, 2025 at 20:22 | history | edited | Xander Henderson | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| Jan 14, 2025 at 20:20 | comment | added | Dave L Renfro | Maybe better? "... a paper on underwater basket weaving is probably not appropriate for the journal Advances in Airborne Ceramics Smashing"? | |
| Jan 14, 2025 at 18:14 | history | edited | Xander Henderson | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 8 characters in body
|
| Jan 14, 2025 at 18:10 | comment | added | civitas | Assuming some of the revisions requested the first time around were not intended to better fit the article to the first journal's subject matter preference and readership. | |
| Jan 14, 2025 at 17:47 | comment | added | Xander Henderson | @TooTea An run the risk of not being able to find qualified reviewers and then publishing something which turns out to be crap and has to be retracted? :P Sure, it could happen, but part of the job of the reviewer is to point out that something is out-of-scope. | |
| Jan 14, 2025 at 17:46 | comment | added | Xander Henderson | @DonQuiKong I've added some baskets. I hate to put a number on it, because that isn't quite the right spirit. Rather, it is about scope. A paper on underwater basket weaving might be a good fit for Advances in Thrown Ceramics if there were a significant section on how methods of underwater basket weaving might apply to submarine pottery wheels, but the vast majority of papers on underwater basket weaving are almost certainly going to have nothing to do with ceramics, let alone cutting edge thrown ceramics. | |
| Jan 14, 2025 at 17:43 | comment | added | TooTea | Well, if that paper really is that ground-breaking, a pragmatic editor could easily think "this paper will rake in hundreds of citations and lots of media exposure for our little journal, I'll just accept it before someone else does, scope be damned" ;-) | |
| Jan 14, 2025 at 17:43 | history | edited | Xander Henderson | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 146 characters in body
|
| Jan 14, 2025 at 15:31 | comment | added | DonQuiKong | And that, kids, is why other people use underwater basket weaving as an example. -- and btw., you're saying "is probably not", can you elaborate on how big that probability is? Like, 49%? Or 0,0000000000001%? | |
| Jan 14, 2025 at 15:08 | comment | added | Æzor Æhai -him- | "the application of fractal zeta functions to the Riemann hypothesis is probably not appropriate for Theory and Application of Categories" .... ah yes, certainly not ... | |
| Jan 14, 2025 at 13:54 | history | answered | Xander Henderson | CC BY-SA 4.0 |