Fictional peer reviews rejecting famous papers (2005)

Re:Fictional peer reviews rejecting famous papers (2005) by yread on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @05:22AM (#4574803)

To the ones not eager to open a PDF: go ahead and read it, it's hilarious. Rejections of Dijkstra's, Codd's, Turing's, Shannon's, Hoare's, RSA's groundbreaking papers in computer science due to nit picking and short introductions.

For Shannon's paper:

The author claims that “semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problems,” which seems to indicate that his theory is suitable mostly for transmitting gibberish. Alas, people will not pay to have gibberish transmitted anywhere.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fictional peer reviews rejecting famous papers (2005) by danieldk on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @05:56AM (#4574879)

Or even better:

At any point, there are sexy topics and unsexy ones: these days, television is sexy and color television is even sexier. Discrete channels with a finite number of symbols are good for telegraphy, but telegraphy is 100 years old, hardly a good research topic.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fictional peer reviews rejecting famous papers (2005) by ernesth on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @05:57AM (#4574882)

To the ones eager to open a PDF, http://www.fang.ece.ufl.edu/reject.html (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3493803)

[ Parent | on HN ]