At 03:47 PM 12/26/2012, [email protected] wrote:
Wrong! Why on Earth does it need to relate to current discussions at all?
Haven't these people ever heard of a new topic of discussion?
No. Your point?
Okay, okay. Perhaps they have a journal about a topic, and "topic" is
a "field," and a "field" is the state of discussions about the topic.
Not about some *other* topic. So a "new topic" would be outside the
field. Q.E.D. Rejected. Next case!
Infuriating, but also understandable. At the same time.
The reviewer did not recognize the paper as being about a field that
s/he knew, or, alternatively, /he considered it old hat. That would
be consistent with the message. But someone I think that what is more
likely is that the reviewer did not want to take the time to figure
out what the hell the paper was about, and blamed the author for a
failure to connect the paper with the field's "conversation."
Come to think of it, isn't it the job of the author to establish relevance?
I'm getting dizzy. We have to stop meeting like this.
