Electro Tech is an online community (with over 170,000 members) who enjoy talking about and building electronic circuits, projects and gadgets. To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.
Welcome to our site! Electro Tech is an online community (with over 170,000 members) who enjoy talking about and building electronic circuits, projects and gadgets. To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.
"And what does one thing have to do with the other? This is an examply of why you are difficult to take seriously."
Surely you do not consider Wikipedia a peer reviewed publication? Well, I suppose it would be if by peer we mean other internet experts with anonymous identities.
"And what does one thing have to do with the other? This is an examply of why you are difficult to take seriously."
Surely you do not consider Wikipedia a peer reviewed publication? Well, I suppose it would be if by peer we mean other internet experts with anonymous identities.
No. It is people who submit sloppy, typo-ridden rhetoric while preaching to the choir about how thorough and well versed you are on all matters under the Sun who can't be taken seriously.
No, that is not how peer-review works. It is up to you, the researcher, to show your proofs and cite peer-reviewed sources. We, as the editors and referees get to shove it back with a big "reject" stamp. That is how peer-review works. After all, were you not trying to teach us this?
No, that is not how peer-review works. It is up to you, the researcher, to show your proofs and cite peer-reviewed sources. We, as the editors and referees get to shove it back with a big "reject" stamp. That is how peer-review works. After all, were you not trying to teach us this?
I've never preached about how thorough and well versed I am. But is typos all you got? You don't seem to be able to refute my data, analysis or any of the other research I do, so guess you can only carp about a couple typos. I remain unimpressed.
Browonout, in ALL SERIOUSNESS. Why is your world view so simplified and idealistic? Have you never met someone who had ulterior motives? A crook or scam artist? Have you never been cheated out of anything?
You don't honestly believe that scientists have halos do you?
I don't need to. All it takes in peer review is to dismiss the submission based on non peer reviewed sources. Just that simple. I thought you were the peer review expert here. Why must you insist on making me explain all of this?
Another thing. The researcher is not permitted to argue with his reviewer. He just gets to go back and rewrite his paper with better cited sources.
I don't need to. All it takes in peer review is to dismiss the submission based on non peer reviewed sources. Just that simple. I thought you were the peer review expert here. Why must you insist on making me explain all of this?
Another thing. The researcher is not permitted to argue with his reviewer. He just gets to go back and rewrite his paper with better cited sources.
I'm not the peer review expert. I wrote an analysis using quantities that I referenced. The Wikipedia article was only used for a single quantity. If you dispute the quantity, then show me what the correct value is. Show me the correct reference from where the quantity is sourced. Otherwise, you only have typos to complain about, which means you have nothing.
Regardless of the hot debate between those supporting the theory of natural Global Warming (GW), versus those supporting Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), there is a single quote which needs to be explained.
"Hide the decline".....
Why should a decline be subject to obfuscation? Graphing data was purposely transposed and truncated.....
I'm not the peer review expert. I wrote an analysis using quantities that I referenced. The Wikipedia article was only used for a single quantity. If you dispute the quantity, then show me what the correct value is. Show me the correct reference from where the quantity is sourced. Otherwise, you only have typos to complain about, which means you have nothing.
The burden of proof and citation is on you. This is a peer review process. Isn't that what you said earlier? I am about to bar you from further publication Mr. researcher if you do not amend your practices and offer properly cited work. Your citations are trash and you didn't even bother to proofread. You have insulted academia by passing this off as scientific literature. You'll never publish in the client sciences again, I'll make sure of that.
(Yes, that is about the general tone of an East Anglican e-mail in the climate gate scandal)
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
