Academic Criticism

Some researchers have a belief that everything they write is golden. This is categorically untrue.
On this page, you'll read some of the responses to the crap that I've written. Enjoy!

*** PAPER ACCEPTANCE RATE: 60.0% (updated June 2021) ***
*** RESEARCH FUNDING ACCEPTANCE RATE: 0.0% (ouch) (updated June 2021) ***

"My only concern with this paper is its depressingly old reference list." - Springer Nature - Research Book Series: Transactions on Computational Science & Computational Intelligence, 2021.

"Given this lack of knowledge of basic literature on the subject, the positioning and relevance of the paper are limited, to non-existent." - Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 2020.

"None of these contributions are relevant in the broader scope of database research because they have been extensively studied over the past decades." - Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 2020 (Reviewer #2)

"The applicant doesn't seem to have enough knowledge of quantum computing to develop a coherent plan." - Development and simulation of a quantum data persistence layer using AWS Braket, Innovate UK research funding application, 2021.

"A generic market assessment, which fails to offer any insight as to what [the] value proposition is." - LINK-IT, Innovate UK research funding application, 2020.

"Whereas Section 2 is supposed to clarify the ideas by providing a running example, this does not really happen. This section is fairly unreadable and the example therein remain obscure.", ACM Transactions on Database Systems (ToDS), 2018.