Anyone here published in a peer-reviewed journal?
What was the process like?
What field?
>>7986394
>linguistics / speech science
slow and awful
>>7986394
>figure out something neat
>guy who is at the top of the field also working on your neat project
>send out papers for review
>guy at the top of the field sees your paper and figures out the problem in an instant
>takes just long enough to go over your paper back to have his peer reviewed and published
>you seem like an idiot and cheater now
>wow anon it seems like you copied the guy at the top of the field
Words cannot describe how shitty it is. Also unless you're publishing something ground breaking, like you actually understand what causes gravity, nobody is going to thoroughly scrutinize your work. This is why science sucks dick.
You suck the reader's dick for hours end
>>7986724
You should've called him out on it or at least he should've credited your work.
>>7986724
If that happened, you would obviously have the means to prove your submission predates his publication.
>>7986724
>not keeping ideas to yourself
>not compartmentalizing the problem when seeking help
you must not be an engineer, they teach us this IP shit in freshman year.
>>7986724
>working on a problem for years, potentially decades
>nearly at a solution
>some brainlet approaches me
>pure autism & trivial nonsense but gives me the inspiration i need to solve the problem im working on
>finally publish my great work in respectable journal
>brainlet awkwardly walks by my door during office hours mumbling to himself
>does this for months
>>7986724
that's literally an offense that would destroy the "top of the field" 's credibility. forever. there was some dude that did this that was banned for publishing ever again.
if that happened to me i would sue.
>>7986736
what was the paper about?
Yes.
It was about ctenophores.
You wouldn't understand.
>>7987008
underrated post
