This definition is based on the probability that a person who would otherwise not have been a case “flips” to being a case
in response to treatment, and the probably that a non-case flips to being a case.
To me that sentence seems cryptic.
Do you mean probability instead of probably?
Maybe the reviewer considered “flips” as too casual. I think the paper might be easier to read if you either would write flips directly without quotes or choose another word.
What the difference between otherwise not have been a case and non-case?
in my view they mostly show that the reviewers simply didn’t understand what I was saying [...] From my point of view, “understanding” something means that you are able to explain it in a casual language.
If the reviwers don’t succeed in understanding what you are saying you might have explained yourself in casual language but still failed.
Yes. Thanks for noticing. I changed that sentence after I got the rejection letter (in order to correct a minor error that the reviewers correctly pointed out), and the error was introduced at that time. So that is not what they were referring to.
If the reviewers don’t succeed in understanding what you are saying you might have explained yourself in casual language but still failed.
I agree, but I am puzzled by why they would have misunderstood. I spent a lot of effort over several months trying to be as clear as possible. Moreover, the ideas are very simple: The definitions are the only real innovation: Once you have the definitions, the proofs are trivial and could have been written by a high school student. If the reviewers don’t understand the basic idea, I will have to substantially update my beliefs about the quality of my writing. This is upsetting because being a bad writer will make it a lot harder to succeed in academia. The primary alternative hypotheses for why they misunderstood are either (1) that they are missing some key fundamental assumption that I take for granted or (2) that they just don’t want to understand.
To me that sentence seems cryptic.
Do you mean probability instead of probably?
Maybe the reviewer considered
“flips”
as too casual. I think the paper might be easier to read if you either would writeflips
directly without quotes or choose another word.What the difference between
otherwise not have been a case
andnon-case
?If the reviwers don’t succeed in understanding what you are saying you might have explained yourself in casual language but still failed.
Yes. Thanks for noticing. I changed that sentence after I got the rejection letter (in order to correct a minor error that the reviewers correctly pointed out), and the error was introduced at that time. So that is not what they were referring to.
I agree, but I am puzzled by why they would have misunderstood. I spent a lot of effort over several months trying to be as clear as possible. Moreover, the ideas are very simple: The definitions are the only real innovation: Once you have the definitions, the proofs are trivial and could have been written by a high school student. If the reviewers don’t understand the basic idea, I will have to substantially update my beliefs about the quality of my writing. This is upsetting because being a bad writer will make it a lot harder to succeed in academia. The primary alternative hypotheses for why they misunderstood are either (1) that they are missing some key fundamental assumption that I take for granted or (2) that they just don’t want to understand.
What kind of audience would you expect to understand your article?