The more intelligent and insightful an article, the smaller the audience. — Nuke
but ideally, articles should be accessible to intelligent and curious lay-people, those who aren't familiar with the literature — jamalrob
I'm at my wit's end in trying to publish something in an academic journal. — god must be atheist
Could you expatiate on why my article was rejected - simply for a better assessment if it was my demerit during the development process, or if it was something from the administration -? — Gus Lamarch
simply for a better assessment if it was my demerit during the development process, or if it was something from the administration -? — Gus Lamarch
A few of the reasons: — fdrake
The argumentative style was overblown, lots of grandstanding. — fdrake
you talked around points without making them clearly. Say what you'll say, say it, then tell us you've said it. Tell us why what you're writing about matters. — fdrake
the essay was poorly formatted and layed out on the page. - eg your use of whitespace+linebreaks and numbered lists in p 1->6. — fdrake
the philosophical content touches on an obvious case of the naturalistic fallacy without addressing it. If you're going to do something like naturalise morality, you need an answer to why it's not the fallacy. — fdrake
You'd previously submitted it as the original post of a thread. — fdrake
I'll provide more examples of the points if you like. — fdrake
Your ego was so frail, that you felt obliged, in some way, to prove to me - and to yourself - that somehow, you still have power. Again, you prove me correct, and you, wrong. — Gus Lamarch
I am grateful if you can give me more material to show to others how the intellect of the forum administration is biased, impartial, and incapable of plurality of thoughts. Feel free to submit more. — Gus Lamarch
The naturalistic "fallacy", here, in your "justification", proves vacant of support and foundation. — Gus Lamarch
However, I come to affirm my hypothesis that there is a fourth
category of egoism that has not yet been recognized, but it is more important than all the others, and that in principle, it would be the causality of all humanity: Natural Egoism – Man's egoism is the natural essence of “Being”. — Gus Lamarch, from the Article
So, what I am saying is that I don't think that you need be concerned about your article not being 'accepted' because it is on the site. People have only to log into the Section on Articles Submitted and your article on Egoism is there, waiting to be read. Also, on my phone, the font is clearer than the one in the official articles section. — Jack Cummins
About a month ago, Hippyhead had ideas that the whole site should be altered with the articles being the main one. I strongly disliked this idea because I thought that it would set up a system where the people with accepted articles would be seen as of higher rank. I said to Hippyhead that I didn't like the whole idea of article submissions because it set up a power dynamic of people having their work accepted or rejected. — Jack Cummins
If you seemed willing to address the issues I've highlighted I'd be more willing to provide you with further feedback. The essay has structural problems; why are you arguing what you're arguing? Tell us! And tell us why it matters! It should be relatively easy to tell what you're arguing about and why it matters, from the essay, even if I don't understand the terms' intricacies. You need to give readers a desire to buy in to study your work, you get closer to that by being clear. — fdrake
appeal to nature. I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad thing to do that — fdrake
the philosophical content touches on an obvious case of the naturalistic fallacy — fdrake
put it in your article. — fdrake
Stop wasting everybody's time. You were given some of the reasons why the article wasn't published. We don't care what you think of the reasons why it wasn't accepted or why you think it's necessary to argue against them. You can either fix the article along the lines fdrake set out and resubmit or drop it. — Benkei
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.