[HN Gopher] Angry Reviewer
___________________________________________________________________
Angry Reviewer
Author : penguin_booze
Score : 79 points
Date : 2022-09-29 15:06 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.angryreviewer.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.angryreviewer.com)
| s1mon wrote:
| Uh, maybe include the text being reviewed in the results? It's
| weird to see all the comments and not necessarily have the text
| in front of you to see what it's talking about. Even better would
| be for each comment to somehow link to a spot in the text. There
| could be more than one "years" in line 1, and then how would you
| know which instance the comment is referring to?
| notacoward wrote:
| > Consider if your readers know the Latin expressions "i.e."
|
| If they don't know that one, good luck to them reading the rest
| of the paper.
| jwie wrote:
| I thought it would nitpick everything but it can be satisfied.
|
| > This sentence is false.
|
| No issues!
| kevinmhickey wrote:
| Meanwhile, the data center is on fire as the machines try in
| vain to parse it...
| jcranmer wrote:
| > The passive voice is to be used exclusively in this abstract.
| Recognized as superior, the indirect method will be foisted upon
| the unwilling audience which will be assuaged by the copious
| delirium found in the general laity.
|
| > Reviewer's suggestions for your text:
|
| > Looks like this text is perfect!
|
| Hmm.
| Gordonjcp wrote:
| Interesting but largely incorrect, at least in part because it
| wants to correct everything to the "American English" patois.
| erehweb wrote:
| See also this parody of the form, which gives notes on the poem
| Ozymandias ("Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair") as if it
| were a submission to an academic journal.
| https://www.nature.com/articles/268100a0.pdf
| OneLeggedCat wrote:
| This isn't the kind of angry reviewer I was expecting.
| f1shy wrote:
| Pedantic would be more appropriate?
| godot wrote:
| Yeah, I was wondering about this. What is actually angry about
| this?
|
| I had to take a moment to think about whether the suggestions
| are satire or serious, as it's hard to tell sometimes these
| days, but even after thinking about it -- whether this is
| satire or serious -- I still don't really see how any of the
| suggestions are angry. If serious, they are helpful. If satire,
| it's funny. No anger sensed. :)
| TakeBlaster16 wrote:
| Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do
| eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut
| enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris
| nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in
| reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat
| nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident,
| sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
|
| > Reviewer's suggestions for your text:
|
| > Looks like this text is perfect!
|
| If anyone would like to publish my paper, contact me. Email in
| bio.
| sakerbos wrote:
| This is great! As a Developer, I think this could be handy for
| PR/MR reviews too.
| sfitz wrote:
| I would love to see the text you're working on also be on the
| review page. I also would love my text to persist between going
| back and forth from the edit screen.
| zshrdlu wrote:
| > _The word "significantly" is often significantly misused and
| vague. It might mean statistically significant or significant to
| the author. State significance quantitatively, e.g. "increased by
| 42%". Other alternatives: "substantially, notably"_
|
| I think once "substantially" and "notably" become widely used,
| the goal-posts will shift and those too will lose meaning. I have
| a strong suspicion some of these standards are just plain
| fashion.
| woodson wrote:
| Significance has a specialized meaning in (quantitative)
| scientific discourse, while "substantial" or "notable" does
| not. I think using these alternatives is an easy enough thing
| to do in order to increase clarity.
| plaidfuji wrote:
| This reminds me of a paper that was published in Nature a while
| back called "Use Machine Learning to Find Energy Materials".
| Scientific writing is so heavily steeped in the passive voice
| that it was shocking to read a title that was active, even
| imperative.
|
| The author goes on to write the entire article in the same style,
| with short, active sentences - subject, verb, period. It felt
| like they wrote it and proofread it to ensure that every single
| sentence was as abrupt and pointed as possible, almost as a game.
| Very interesting writing style all things considered.
|
| https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-017-07820-6
| elil17 wrote:
| That's a comment, not a paper. They serve a different purpose
| than papers and therefor aren't required to have
| incomprehensible writing.
| mananaysiempre wrote:
| Academic CS has its share of whimsical titles; these are Conor
| McBride's specialty[1], although he's not at all the only
| practitioner[2,3]. In other areas it's not as common, but I
| could name some famous physics[4] or maths papers. Titles that
| are not whimsical but straight to the point also do occur[5,6],
| and so do subtler jokes[7,8].
|
| [1] "I am not a number--I am a free variable", McBride,
| https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1017472.1017477
|
| [2] "Observational equality, now!", Altenkirch et al.,
| https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1292597.1292608
|
| [3] "Functional programming with bananas, lenses, envelopes and
| barbed wire", Meijer et al.,
| https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/3540543961_7
|
| [4] "The eightfold way", Gell-Mann,
| https://www.osti.gov/biblio/4008239
|
| [5] "What are principal typings and what are they good for?",
| Jim, https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/237721.237728
|
| [6] "On the role of the Heisenberg group in harmonic analysis",
| Howe, https://projecteuclid.org/journals/bulletin-of-the-
| american-...
|
| [7] "(Para)bosons, (para)fermions, quons and other beasts in
| the menagerie of particle statistics", Greenberg, Greenberger,
| Greenberg _est_ , https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9306225
|
| [8] "The origin of chemical elements", Alpher, _Bethe_ , Gamov,
| https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.73.803, although that
| one led to some resentment from the first (and main) author
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| Do such systems exist for writing and reviewing requirements and
| test objectives? This would be great to keep them consistent.
| n4r9 wrote:
| I followed the review comments to the letter, starting from the
| default text. After two iterations I succeeded in a perfect text:
|
| > Although quantity of innovative scientific output increased
| largely in the past 2021, the quality of academic writing has
| been declining as rarely. Click the button below to check this
| text!
|
| [Edit: just to be clear, I didn't mean this in a snarky way! Was
| just having a bit of fun. I guess it does go to show that
| automated review comments need a human touch before applying.]
| minimaxir wrote:
| Note: this is not AI/GPT-3, just all heuristics surprisingly:
| https://github.com/anufrievroman/Angry-Reviewer
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-29 23:02 UTC)