Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Path: brunix!uunet!mcsun!fuug!anon
From: an15571@anon.penet.fi
Subject: Top 100 Reasons of Rejection
Message-ID: <1993Mar13.061610.10095@fuug.fi>
Sender: anon@fuug.fi (The Anon Administrator)
Reply-To: an15571@anon.penet.fi
Organization: Anonymous contact service
X-Anonymously-To: comp.robotics
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1993 22:34:17 GMT
Lines: 105

Folks, add your reasons to the list.
*************************************************************
		Top 100 Reasons of Rejection


100.	To be fair, I flipped a coin for you. Sorry, it was not 
	in favor of you.

99.	Although your paper is good, others are better.

98.	This is a "me too" paper. 

97.	The paper is too long to fit into the proceedings. 

96.	This paper is irrelevant to the conference.  

95.	This paper lacks focus: it claims two results, but does not indicate
	which is the major one.

94.	Why don't you run some experiments?

93.	Although the experiments look good, there is no theory.

92.	The key references appear in such unknown conferences that I am not
	able to check the validity of the paper.

91.	The title is misleading as it sounds like it has solved everything.

90.	This topic again! I have abandoned it years ago!

89.	I didn't solve it for years, how can you solve it by
	using high school mathematics?

88.	You see, the referees cannot reach a consensus on your paper.

87.	Frankly, I did not understand your paper at all. Can't you write it
	in plain English?

86.	This is an old problem. There are hundreds of solutions. Did you compare
	your solution with the existing ones?

85.	How can you claim robustness by giving just 10 examples?

84.	Although you disguised your authorship, I still know who you are.

83.	I dislike guys like you who makes a shot and changes a gun.

82.	This paper does not delight my taste.

81.	I am not sure what is original in the paper, as my students also know
	the same facts.

80.	The English reads like a Japanese one ...

79.	I know this already. I just did not write it in my papers.

78.	Sorry, as a policy, any paper better than mine has to be killed.

77.	I remember we had discussion on this topic. Didn't you
	forget to put my name on?
	
76.	Your paper is too good to be publisehed.

75.	This is a really threatening one: it will take all my research fund
	from me.

74.	Oh, man, you are bullshitting about philosophy again.

73.	I should have written this paper if I had not been so busy finding funds.

72.	The results are too good to trust. If your algorithm works for my 
	data, then it is probably true.

71.	You paper does not seem to preserve jobs, including mine.

70.	The results should wait until mature (after mine are published).

69.	Now I know where my research fund goes: it is all consumed
	by a paper machine like you!

68.	You should have known that to publish a paper in my field, you
	have to consult me first.

67.	Are you saying I was wrong?

66.	Hay! How come all my ideas appear in your paper?

65.	Don't you forget some references?

64.	Why don't you follow my line?

63.	You poor boy! Why should you do the same thing as what my students
	are doing?

62.	Ha, you must be the guy who killed my paper last year.

61.	If I don't kill papers like this, how can my toilet paper has a chance?

60.	Now, it's my turn to be Chairman ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind system, any replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi.
*IMPORTANT server security update*, mail to update@anon.penet.fi for details.
