Just got the email. The journal regrets to inform me that my paper has been rejected

Where did you submit?

Cluster analysis

Thats normal.

Lol OP. I have already had like 8 rejections or something in total

Get used to it.

Academia is fucked beyond recognition. You need to be very cunning. Don't express your ideas too colorfully as if they were brand new (even if they effectively are)

Become a tranny and you'll be accepted in no time

Send it somewhere else you spineless faggot.

This. Academia is hell.

can someone explain to me why you would want your paper published in some paywalled journal? post the shit on the internet for free. stop being a cuck and letting the journal jew use you to make shekels

I am a brainlet too.
I once paid a fucking Indian medical pay to play journal $500 to publish a paper I wrote about the cancer causing properties of telescope use. I had worked on the paper for years by observing elderly men at the local astronomy club, of whom 2 got cancer. Had graphs, charts etc.

It got fucking REJECTED because it was so shitty. No refund either and he paper no longer exists.

fuck the 'scientific method' it represses new views

Recognition maybe? I agree with you though.

>I am a brainlet too
This should be your conclusion from this story too

>he fell for the academia meme
*breathes in*

Change one word and send it back, end your name with "berg" or "stein" for instance

Don't worry user, everyone knows peer review is literally complete bullshit and anti-scientific, anti-philosophical, anti-rational, etc
You will not suddenly be respected in sciences if you publish your paper, remember that.
You will not suddenly be successful in any academic field if you get your paper published.
You won't even prove anything by getting your paper published.
And now you think that not getting your paper published means that you're unintelligent? Don't fall for that meme, user. Those journals are completely biased, and I'd challenge anyone who would foolishly want to argue otherwise. You just didn't fit the bias of the people reading your paper. It's cool, you're a better thinker than them.

he's got a point

Can't you just upload it online and put the link on your resume ? I'm sure people will care more about the content of your article than it being published or not.

so sorry we had to reject your paper SIIIIRRRR

Good post

Using telescopes is a risk factor for cancer? Care to elucidate?

Then someone will copy your work, put his name on it and publish in the same journal.

Unfortunately that’s not the best method for obtaining recognition and securing funding. NIH, NSF, and private institutions want to be see publications in journals not your blogspot or tumblr posts user.

Keep working at it. In time, your work won't be rejected, you just need to refine it and keep on writing

Beta radiation

ITT: we pretend arxiv (or vixra, depending on the quality of OPs work) isn't a thing

does no one respect arXiv?

I sure as fuck don't

see it depends on if arXiv bans your high quality work too

BANNED, PDF ARXIV SUBMISSION STAMP:
>The General Relevance of the Modified Cosmological Model
>vixra.org/abs/1712.0598

Strong bait

Don't lose hope OP, keep at it and you'll succeed eventually.

Kek

I can see why this sort of stuff gets rejected.
>200 pages of badly explained drivel
>no proofs anywhere
>all these meme-concepts

>vixra.org/abs/1712.0598
Holy shit, this is a thing of beauty. I can't believe ArXiv would reject such a masterpiece.

...

...

A real masterpiece.

Jon, you are such a faggot. I hope you die very soon.

OP, was it rejected before going out for review? Also, where (read: impact factor of journal) was it rejected?

>Literally taking figures from wikipedia and not creating them himself
>A real masterpiece
U stupid?

Why the hate. Explain it please.

>Why the hate. Explain it please.
He gets like this when he's hungry. Just ignore him.

send it to another journal. Francis Mojica, the discoverer of CRISPR had his paper rejected more than 3 times

chad particles kill beta cells

Hate? It is not hate.
Jonathan Tooker is just an annoying crank that spams his shitty nonsense "research" around everywhere.

Maybe your paper got rejected because your writing is horrible, not because of the technical content behind it or because peer review is a jewish nest

Could you explain to a brainlet why his research is shit/fake?

Also, the bible quote in the beginning makes a good comeback IF his paper would get a Nobel prize. That's how he meant it right? I hope

We always pay the extra, $500 to make it open access. And the unofficial rule in our lab is not to cite paywalled articles.

FYI, PeerJ is a bretty gud open access peer reviewed journal, with super cheap prices

What if an article critical to your argument is paywalled?