Expected Value = N * p
Submitted another paper today.
Keep pushing away at that N.
Nvelope.
Keep pushing away at that N.
Nvelope.
posted by Tabula Rasa | 2/01/2007 11:26:00 PM
Nomological Net
Stray thoughts from here and there. The occasional concern for construct validity. No more logic. Fish.
- The hippest game I ever invented
- Cosmic Sunny
- 2-in-1
- Meltdown
- Standing on the shoulders of giants
- Lehrerosity
- Naked Santa
- R.I.P., Ahmet Ertegun
- Miles to go
- Grab bag
- 2x3x7
- black mamba
- chronicus skepticus
- cyborg's contemplative corner
- flaff revealed
- f.l.o.t.s.a.m.
- gaddeswarup's blog
- gladly beyond any distance
- hora decubitus
- mental deviation
- nanopolitan
- the other side
- phantasmagoria
- prufrock's philippic
- random thoughts of a demented bong
- saki naka
- scout 'fessing up
- sweetness and light
- szerelem, szerelem
- yossarian lives on ayahuasca
14 Comments:
Not being from the academic world and all, what happens next?
'N good luck!
N-between your teaching work this term? Impressive.
km:
thanks :-) it's a pretty twisty road still. first the editor takes a quick look and makes a judgment about whether to reject out of hand or not. about 30% of submissions get "desk-rejected" this way. if you survive, the editor farms the paper out to an associate editor, from where it is stripped of all identifying information and sent to three (or two, or four) reviewers. these people read the paper and dump on it (they're anonymous to the author as well, so this is called "double blind"). the AE collates their reviews and adds his/her own 2 cents, and sends it back to the editor, who then makes a decision to either reject, or ask you to "revise and resubmit" based on the comments from the reviewers and AE. this whole process takes about 2-3 months (in my field -- mileages vary). when you get the review, first you celebrate if it's an r&r. then you spend a week blowing your top at all the intemperate comments that are clear evidence that the reviewers didn't understand anything you wrote. then you collect your wits, and get to addressing all the points of revision. (as long as you're not rejected, you're still alive! if you do get rejected, you cry a little in the corner, then send the paper to a different journal.) it may take anywhere between two months to two years to revise the paper in line with the reviewers' comments, and when you get that done you send it back to the journal for the second round of review. most papers take two or three rounds before they finally get accepted -- overall acceptance rates are around 10%.
so the short answer to your question - what happens next - twiddle fingers and pray, and get to work on something else! :-D
mt:
thanks!! this is the product of last semester's effort, delayed, plus the magic labor-saving device: a good collaborator :-D
we had the first week of classes already. it's astonishing how easy it is to slip back into the groove, even though this is my first time ever at teaching three sections back to back. tiring, but that's all.
good shit. i cant seem to get my ass on a chair and finally DOING the paper that's due today.
how do you do it, professor?
congrats! whats it about?
scout:
easy. neck on the line --> ass on the chair.
arun:
thanks and welcome back, long time! about the content of the paper - i'm sorry - i'd rather not leave any key words hanging round on this blog that google users can stumble across. suffice it to say that i'm a consumer psychologist; this paper's about a certain aspect of how consumers make decisions. sorry.
ya, kind of got caught in the busy lane.
So, in effect, u decide if the consumer decisions are np-hard, np-easy or np-complete, I guess! :)
i love a literate pun!
Why not put the paper in some archive or website and go on to work on the next problem that bugs you instead of worrying about referees. I did that with a couple of papers about 5 years ago and did not publish them. People still refer to them. Later published a long paper when I was tired and had to write 20 pages of corrections. What is worse, I have to use these resultsin the next papers. If only I had waited for acouple of years before publishing it, life would have been simpler.
swarup:
i see you ended up answering your question :-D
the only thing i have to add is: *tenure*.
um, p= cites?
heh, good point :-D
i'd meant it as probability of getting a hit, but cites is just as valid (and may even be more farsighted).
you mean far-cited!
excellent.
Post a Comment
<< Home