Scientific Papers That Were Rejected Before Going on to Win a Nobel Prize (2016)

Re:Scientific Papers That Were Rejected Before Going on to W... by glofish on Thursday October 10, 2019 @08:45AM (#21213772)

As framed above the story is little more than make-you-feel-good if you get rejection. The data makes sense only in the following contexts:

  - How many accepted papers did win the Nobel Prize?
  - How many rejected papers did not win the Nobel prize?
  - How many rejected papers are utter batshit nonsense?

Other way to say it, what is the likelihood that a rejected paper is Nobel prize-worthy? ...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Scientific Papers That Were Rejected Before Going on to W... by ncmncm on Friday October 11, 2019 @02:11PM (#21226898)

I read it as being about the incompetence of reviewers. Considering the dreck that does get published, rejecting Nobel-level work should be an enduring disgrace.

Edit: had forgotten about submission fees. Yes, those were real. $100 was a lot more then, particularly for a grad student. Competion from open-access journals has been so good that people are forgetting how terrible it was. But paywall journals are still very, very bad. IMO it is irresponsible to use one.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Scientific Papers That Were Rejected Before Going on to W... by gmiller123456 on Thursday October 10, 2019 @01:38PM (#21217227)

Or, how many Nobel Prize papers required no revisions after the first submission.

[ Parent | on HN ]