Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Suppose you were referee II

Got suggestions for improvement? General observations? Corrections? Questions? Do you recommend publication? Is it the best paper you've ever seen, bar none? Put referee type feedback in the comments!

Click each page for a bigger version. Feel free to email me if you'd like me to send the pdf.

Translate English to Arabic

محمد النشائي El Naschie Watch محمد النشائي El Naschie News محمد النشائي
محمد النشائي All El Naschie All The Time محمد النشائي


  1. Hey this one has numbered equations! (Clap clap clap) Credit where credit it due.

  2. Putting aside the question of correctness, it's hard for me to believe this would amount to a Least Publishable Unit if you didn't run the journal.

  3. Referee report:
    The sole scientific merit of this paper appears to be the correct calculation of the cube of the golden mean, and the inverse thereof. This is not of sufficient significance to warrant publication in a reputable journal, and I must therefore recommend rejection of the paper.

    More appropriate avenues for the dissemination of such calculations, which the author might like to consider, are any internet group dedicated to middle school maths, or CSF.

  4. hhahahahaha EXACTLY. B-I-N-G-O.
    wiping tears of mirth from my eyes!!!
    hahhahahha rotflmao

    Hmmm wait a minute... are we being unfair?

    He did after all *** CORRECTLY *** calculate the cube of the golden ratio. That is SOOO much better than doing it ***INCORRECTLY***.