Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

As framed above the story is little more than make-you-feel-good if you get rejection. The data makes sense only in the following contexts:

  - How many accepted papers did win the Nobel Prize?
  - How many rejected papers did not win the Nobel prize?
  - How many rejected papers are utter batshit nonsense?
Other way to say it, what is the likelihood that a rejected paper is Nobel prize-worthy? ...

I read it as being about the incompetence of reviewers. Considering the dreck that does get published, rejecting Nobel-level work should be an enduring disgrace.

Edit: had forgotten about submission fees. Yes, those were real. $100 was a lot more then, particularly for a grad student. Competion from open-access journals has been so good that people are forgetting how terrible it was. But paywall journals are still very, very bad. IMO it is irresponsible to use one.

Or, how many Nobel Prize papers required no revisions after the first submission.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact