from annals? Maybe it depends on how obviously unsuitable our paper is?
How long to hear back about quick opinion
If the first few quick opinions are in conflict, they get more quick opinions. They also sometimes circle back to previous quick opinion givers, to show them later quick opinions. The bar is so high, there's no point in proceeding if a paper has a persistently negative quick opinion from someone they trust.
If the first few quick opinions are in conflict, they get more quick opinions. They also sometimes circle back to previous quick opinion givers, to show them later quick opinions. The bar is so high, there's no point in proceeding if a paper has a persistently negative quick opinion from someone they trust.
Wouldn't they trust anyone they asked? Why would you ask someone you don't trust?
Wouldn't they trust anyone they asked? Why would you ask someone you don't trust?
You ask a mix of people. Some are specialists on the particular topic -- and therefore are more likely to think the topic is very important. From them you're trying to get a sense of whether the paper is likely to be correct and the result or methods valuable. Other people you ask aren't specialists but are known as being broadly knowledgeable about the more general area of the paper. They give a more unbiased view of whether the topic is important.
Wouldn't they trust anyone they asked? Why would you ask someone you don't trust?
You ask a mix of people. Some are specialists on the particular topic -- and therefore are more likely to think the topic is very important. From them you're trying to get a sense of whether the paper is likely to be correct and the result or methods valuable. Other people you ask aren't specialists but are known as being broadly knowledgeable about the more general area of the paper. They give a more unbiased view of whether the topic is important.
thanks, crip
I once gave a quick opinion to reject 8 months after I was asked, and the paper was already a couple of months with the editor. Reason: I forgot and no one reminded me.
If the authors were junior, you may have ended a career here.
I know, I know... on the other hand the paper was not too good either. It was the kind of things that some people know that should work, but nobody really wants to write down because it is not the main point of the problem.
[...]
If the authors were junior, you may have ended a career here.
I know, I know... on the other hand the paper was not too good either. It was the kind of things that some people know that should work, but nobody really wants to write down because it is not the main point of the problem.
i've gotten these sort of papers into TAMS or even AJM level journals. Sure the result might be unsurprising or expected at a certain point, but there's still a need to actually do it and carry out the details. Unfair to assume a result without actually proving it. Hate it when people who talk out of their ass just dismissively say something should follow when it might not. But then again, a TAMS won't change their job outcome. Still you should feel bad.
[...]
I know, I know... on the other hand the paper was not too good either. It was the kind of things that some people know that should work, but nobody really wants to write down because it is not the main point of the problem.
i've gotten these sort of papers into TAMS or even AJM level journals. Sure the result might be unsurprising or expected at a certain point, but there's still a need to actually do it and carry out the details. Unfair to assume a result without actually proving it. Hate it when people who talk out of their ass just dismissively say something should follow when it might not. But then again, a TAMS won't change their job outcome. Still you should feel bad.
This was above Duke, hence the outcome. At the end the paper was published in Duke, which I think was fair.
[...]
I know, I know... on the other hand the paper was not too good either. It was the kind of things that some people know that should work, but nobody really wants to write down because it is not the main point of the problem.
i've gotten these sort of papers into TAMS or even AJM level journals. Sure the result might be unsurprising or expected at a certain point, but there's still a need to actually do it and carry out the details. Unfair to assume a result without actually proving it. Hate it when people who talk out of their ass just dismissively say something should follow when it might not. But then again, a TAMS won't change their job outcome. Still you should feel bad.
TAMS papers will change job outcomes outside the top 25-30 for sure. People on this site writing like only top 5s matter for all candidates - it isn't true.
[...]
i've gotten these sort of papers into TAMS or even AJM level journals. Sure the result might be unsurprising or expected at a certain point, but there's still a need to actually do it and carry out the details. Unfair to assume a result without actually proving it. Hate it when people who talk out of their ass just dismissively say something should follow when it might not. But then again, a TAMS won't change their job outcome. Still you should feel bad.
This was above Duke, hence the outcome. At the end the paper was published in Duke, which I think was fair.
Wow, you actually may have cost this person a job or at the very least a whole job cycle. The Duke paper coming 8 months sooner may have gotten them a really good job as opposed to doing a second postdoc and reapplying.
I've heard of quick-opinion-rejects from Annals after 2 years. Whoever is involved in this kind of stuff should be blacklisted as referee.
they should not just be blacklisted, they should be publicly shamed
at that point it's the editor's fault for waiting for them and not finding another person for quick opinion.
Your screen is so tiny that we decided to disable the captcha and posting feature
Formatting guidelines: Commonmark with no images and html allowed. $ and $$ for LaTeX. Input previewed in last post of thread. For a link to be allowed it must include the http(s) tag and come from the list of allowed domains.