Техножрица 👩‍💻👩‍🏫👩‍🔧

Теренс Тао (математик, филдсовский лауреат) рассказывает про реджекты (отклонение) своих статей из журналов 🥴 (ниже будет Tl;Dr на русском):

Rejection is actually a relatively common occurrence for me, happening once or twice a year on average. I occasionally mention this fact to my students and colleagues, who are sometimes surprised that my rejection rate is far from zero. I have belatedly realized our profession is far more willing to announce successful accomplishments (such as having a paper accepted, or a result proved) than unsuccessful ones (such as a paper rejected, or a proof attempt not working), except when the failures are somehow controversial. Because of this, a perception can be created that all of one's peers are achieving either success or controversy, with one's own personal career ending up becoming the only known source of examples of "mundane" failure. I speculate that this may be a contributor to the "impostor syndrome" that is prevalent in this field (though, again, not widely disseminated, due to the aforementioned reporting bias, and perhaps also due to some stigma regarding the topic). ...

With hindsight, some of my past rejections have become amusing. With a coauthor, I once almost solved a conjecture, establishing the result with an "epsilon loss" in a key parameter. We submitted to a highly reputable journal, but it was rejected on the grounds that it did not resolve the full conjecture. So we submitted elsewhere, and the paper was accepted.

The following year, we managed to finally prove the full conjecture without the epsilon loss, and decided to try submitting to the highly reputable journal again. This time, the paper was rejected for only being an epsilon improvement over the previous literature!

Tl;Dr: Однажды Теренс вместе со своим соавтором доказали математическое утверждение с точностью до эпсилон и отправили этот результат в крутой журнал. Однако, статью отклонили из-за того, что утверждение было доказано не в исходной формулировке, в лишь с точностью до эпсилона, и пришлось отправлять её в другой журнал. 🥴 В следующий раз, они доказали утверждение в точной формулировке (без эпсилона) и снова отправили в первый журнал. Теперь статья была отвергнута из-за того, что являлась эпсилон-улучшением предыдущей статьи 😂
Кроме того, Теренс пишет, что его статьи в целом регулярно (1-2 раза в год) подвергаются реджекту. Это нормально даже среди лучших ученых, но не все об этом рассказывают. Вероятно, из-за этого у многих людей в науке развивается синдром самозванца, т.к. они много слышат о чужих успехах, но очень мало - о неудачах.

Источник: https://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/113721192051328193

#наука

Mathstodon

Terence Tao (@[email protected])

One of my papers got declined today by the journal I submitted it to, with a polite letter saying that while they found the paper interesting, it was not a good fit for the journal. In truth, I largely agreed with their conclusions, and the paper is now…

285😭32❤14😁866👏4🤷‍♂2🔥2👍1

www.group-telegram.com/it/tech_priestess.com/1959

9.7K viewsedited  Jan 6 at 09:23

Теренс Тао (математик, филдсовский лауреат) рассказывает про реджекты (отклонение) своих статей из журналов 🥴 (ниже будет Tl;Dr на русском):

Rejection is actually a relatively common occurrence for me, happening once or twice a year on average. I occasionally mention this fact to my students and colleagues, who are sometimes surprised that my rejection rate is far from zero. I have belatedly realized our profession is far more willing to announce successful accomplishments (such as having a paper accepted, or a result proved) than unsuccessful ones (such as a paper rejected, or a proof attempt not working), except when the failures are somehow controversial. Because of this, a perception can be created that all of one's peers are achieving either success or controversy, with one's own personal career ending up becoming the only known source of examples of "mundane" failure. I speculate that this may be a contributor to the "impostor syndrome" that is prevalent in this field (though, again, not widely disseminated, due to the aforementioned reporting bias, and perhaps also due to some stigma regarding the topic). ...

With hindsight, some of my past rejections have become amusing. With a coauthor, I once almost solved a conjecture, establishing the result with an "epsilon loss" in a key parameter. We submitted to a highly reputable journal, but it was rejected on the grounds that it did not resolve the full conjecture. So we submitted elsewhere, and the paper was accepted.

The following year, we managed to finally prove the full conjecture without the epsilon loss, and decided to try submitting to the highly reputable journal again. This time, the paper was rejected for only being an epsilon improvement over the previous literature!

BY Техножрица 👩‍💻👩‍🏫👩‍🔧