Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Rapid Emergence
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Resha Caner" data-source="post: 68480329" data-attributes="member: 269139"><p>Just a little follow-up ... another journal replied. Since it had been so long I wasn't expecting to hear from them, so it was nice they replied. It was also the only reply that gave me a detailed reason for not publishing, so I really appreciate that - even moreso because the reason wasn't "your conclusion is wrong" but "your conclusion is too obvious."</p><p> </p><p>As I said, I was trying to keep the first step simple, but apparently I made it too simple. In the reply, the reviewer noted I could have used a Markov chain model to evaluate the same question instead of using aTAM, and the Markov model would have given me an exact (closed-form) answer rather than my empirical answer. In fact, the reviewer gave that exact answer and showed it was the same as my emprical answer. For me, it was really cool just to know the idea worked.</p><p> </p><p>On the flip side it also confirmed what I had sort of suspected - that my mathematical knowledge is insufficient to take this any further. Still, I wonder how willing the reviewer would be to chat with me - given I would basically just be wasting his/her time in order to satisfy my own curiosity. Given there is a closed-form answer to the problem I posed, I wonder if the asymptotic relationship I suggested exists. And if so, what does that mean? But ... since it was a blind review the journal would have to agree to give me the reviewer's contact info. That seems unlikely to me.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Resha Caner, post: 68480329, member: 269139"] Just a little follow-up ... another journal replied. Since it had been so long I wasn't expecting to hear from them, so it was nice they replied. It was also the only reply that gave me a detailed reason for not publishing, so I really appreciate that - even moreso because the reason wasn't "your conclusion is wrong" but "your conclusion is too obvious." As I said, I was trying to keep the first step simple, but apparently I made it too simple. In the reply, the reviewer noted I could have used a Markov chain model to evaluate the same question instead of using aTAM, and the Markov model would have given me an exact (closed-form) answer rather than my empirical answer. In fact, the reviewer gave that exact answer and showed it was the same as my emprical answer. For me, it was really cool just to know the idea worked. On the flip side it also confirmed what I had sort of suspected - that my mathematical knowledge is insufficient to take this any further. Still, I wonder how willing the reviewer would be to chat with me - given I would basically just be wasting his/her time in order to satisfy my own curiosity. Given there is a closed-form answer to the problem I posed, I wonder if the asymptotic relationship I suggested exists. And if so, what does that mean? But ... since it was a blind review the journal would have to agree to give me the reviewer's contact info. That seems unlikely to me. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Rapid Emergence
Top
Bottom