7 edited tags
| link
    Notice removed Reward existing answer by E.P.
    Bounty Ended with Kaveh's answer chosen by E.P.
    Notice added Reward existing answer by E.P.
    Bounty Started worth 500 reputation by E.P.
    Notice removed Reward existing answer by MKR
    Bounty Ended with Kaveh's answer chosen by MKR
    Notice added Reward existing answer by MKR
    Bounty Started worth 100 reputation by MKR
    Question Protected by eykanal
6 added examples of reviewer comments (provided by OP in a comment)
source | link

I am interested in the situation where you have a very interesting result. For instance, you have solved a very important open problem. However, you are not known in the field and do not have any remarkable publications. Your supervisor thinks the work is good and you submit the work to a high profile journal, but you get rejected.

The thing is that the contribution is very strong. It breaks what most people believe or what they have already proven: e.g., you solve the P vs. NP problem or any other well known open problem. 

The reviewers strongly reject your work with no justification and they do not state why the result is wrong. Examples of reviewer comments include:

  • "The proof must be wrong."
  • "You cannot achieve such a result."
  • "You do not understand well the notion of ..."

My question is what to do in this situation? Where to go? If your advisor accepts the work, but the reviewers from the top journal reject the work without even explaining the mistakes, what should you do?

I am interested in the situation where you have a very interesting result. For instance, you have solved a very important open problem. However, you are not known in the field and do not have any remarkable publications. Your supervisor thinks the work is good and you submit the work to a high profile journal, but you get rejected.

The thing is that the contribution is very strong. It breaks what most people believe or what they have already proven: e.g., you solve the P vs. NP problem or any other well known open problem. The reviewers strongly reject your work with no justification and they do not state why the result is wrong.

My question is what to do in this situation? Where to go? If your advisor accepts the work, but the reviewers from the top journal reject the work without even explaining the mistakes, what should you do?

I am interested in the situation where you have a very interesting result. For instance, you have solved a very important open problem. However, you are not known in the field and do not have any remarkable publications. Your supervisor thinks the work is good and you submit the work to a high profile journal, but you get rejected.

The thing is that the contribution is very strong. It breaks what most people believe or what they have already proven: e.g., you solve the P vs. NP problem or any other well known open problem. 

The reviewers strongly reject your work with no justification and they do not state why the result is wrong. Examples of reviewer comments include:

  • "The proof must be wrong."
  • "You cannot achieve such a result."
  • "You do not understand well the notion of ..."

My question is what to do in this situation? Where to go? If your advisor accepts the work, but the reviewers from the top journal reject the work without even explaining the mistakes, what should you do?

5 Change i.e. to e.g.
source | link

I am interested in the situation where you have a very interesting result. For instance, you have solved a very important open problem. However, you are not known in the field and do not have any remarkable publications. Your supervisor thinks the work is good and you submit the work to a high profile journal, andbut you get rejected.

The thing is that the contribution is very strong. It breaks what most people believe or what they have already proven, i: e.eg., Youyou solve the P vs. NP problem or any other well known open problem. The reviewers strongly reject your work with no justification and they do not state why the result is wrong.

My question is what to do in this situation? Where to go? If your advisor accepts the work, but the reviewers from the top journal reject the work without even explaining the mistakes, what should you do?

I am interested in the situation where you have a very interesting result. For instance, you have solved a very important open problem. However, you are not known in the field and do not have any remarkable publications. Your supervisor thinks the work is good and you submit the work to a high profile journal, and you get rejected.

The thing is that the contribution is very strong. It breaks what most people believe or what they have already proven, i.e., You solve the P vs. NP problem or any other well known open problem. The reviewers strongly reject your work with no justification and they do not state why the result is wrong.

My question is what to do in this situation? Where to go? If your advisor accepts the work, but the reviewers from the top journal reject the work without even explaining the mistakes, what should you do?

I am interested in the situation where you have a very interesting result. For instance, you have solved a very important open problem. However, you are not known in the field and do not have any remarkable publications. Your supervisor thinks the work is good and you submit the work to a high profile journal, but you get rejected.

The thing is that the contribution is very strong. It breaks what most people believe or what they have already proven: e.g., you solve the P vs. NP problem or any other well known open problem. The reviewers strongly reject your work with no justification and they do not state why the result is wrong.

My question is what to do in this situation? Where to go? If your advisor accepts the work, but the reviewers from the top journal reject the work without even explaining the mistakes, what should you do?

    Tweeted twitter.com/#!/StackAcademia/status/448323412021485568
4 edited title
| link
3 deleted 102 characters in body
source | link
2 Removing ill-advised use of MathJax and retagging for here (as best I know how to).
source | link
    Post Migrated Here from cs.stackexchange.com
1
source | link