Cat HicksWas just reminded that the last paper rejection I got included a reviewer comment: "too much psychology for a software engineer audience."
Feels like it should maybe be a new bio quote š it's absolutely true of me. It's absolutely true.
Barry Schwartz š«@grimalkina Maybe the stuff is too good for the journals.
@chemoelectric backalley open access preprints you can quietly give your friends is where my best work is, truly. I think the highest quality work and writing I've done is contained in these preprints
@grimalkina In fundamental physics you cannot find quality stuff at all in the āeliteā journals. There they publish only utter nonsense.
(Iām not a physicist, thank goodness. A retired computer programmer with an engineering education, but who dabbles in a few physics topics without publishing except from a soapbox. But I do subscribe to the ACM Digital Library!)
@grimalkina I write code. I lace my code and READMEs with āpsychologicalā commentary. Lately it has been stuff about how, no, it is not Rā·RS Scheme that is reactionary, it is Rā¶RS Scheme that was reactionary, because it rejected the SRFIs. I actually stick this stuff in my libraries because I think it explains a lot.