Nature publishing & physics PROJECT OUTLINES

[blue89]

They rejected it because they didn't think it was good enough for their journal. Further contact will be nothing but time wasting fire all involved.

 

if you are sure,and they confirm this. probably I will have to find new ways for job. (I will have to leave to continue science)

I was almost sure why some professors did not refuse it (meaning it was illogical)

look I am marking some keywords to support my ideas.

 

 

 

Dear ..

Thank you for submitting your manuscript "Mathematical Interference To Cure Of Cancer Ilness And Research To Reach Newest Clues About >3D Space" which we are regretfully unable to offer to publish.

It is Nature Physics' policy to return a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees. Decisions of this kind are made by the editors of Nature Physics according to the demanding editorial criteria of the journal.

In the present case, while your findings may well prove stimulating to others' thinking about such questions, we regret that we are unable to conclude that the work provides the sort of firm advance in general understanding that would warrant publication in Nature Physics.

We are sorry that we cannot respond more positively on this occasion.

Regards,

Nature Physics

 

 

they prefer to publish instead suitability or being appropriate .

they also prefer "to conclude" .

Edited September 1, 2016 by blue89

[Ophiolite]

blue,

 

There are several persons here trying to help you and you are closing your ears to what they are saying.

 

1. Nature will not publish your paper. They have no interest in publishing your paper. Your paper fails to meet the standards they have set. They have no interest in seeing your complete manuscript, or any other part of it. Their rejection is based upon two facts:

a) It it does not meet their standards.

b) It does not offer any significant advance of knowledge.

 

2. Your written English is truly dreadful. It requires hard work to understand what you have written. In some cases your English is so bad it is impossible to understand.

 

3. Your own understanding of English is very limited. you have misunderstood the very clear messages from Nature. You have misunderstood many of the posts from members here.

 

4. You appear unwilling to admit to both of these failings. Until you recognise how bad they are it will be very difficult for you to begin improving.

 

5. Your recent attempt to correct Strange's grammar would have been funny if it were not so sad. Strange was correct. Everyone else participating in this thread understood exactly what he meant.

 

6. We understand that you have had a difficult time in your life. That is why many members here are trying to help you. One way of doing this would be to allow us to read your abstract. Why are you unwilling to share this?

 

7. We genuinely want to help you. I know this post may hurt you, but unless you accept the points I have made you are unlikely to be able to achieve your goals.

 

Once again, whatever your decision, good luck.

[blue89]

yes ,ophiolitte . your all words are hurting :(

but I am feeling quite surprising.

I have been contacting with many many journals & services & associations

why any of them did not mention about my english as you say that it was too poor.

ophiolitte be aware that I think you will never be helpful to anyone.

I don't discuss your opinion.

I express what I am understanding from your hurting words and this is not the first time you do it.

[Strange]

 

if you are sure,and they confirm this. probably I will have to find new ways for job. (I will have to leave to continue science)

 

If you want to do science, then I recommend you go to university and study. You are not going to get very far with your current approach.

 

 

look I am marking some keywords to support my ideas.

 

You seem to have missed the keywords:

 

we are regretfully unable to offer to publish.

 

In other words: They are not able/willing to publish

 

 

we are unable to conclude that the work provides the sort of firm advance in general understanding that would warrant publication in Nature Physics.

 

This means: it does not provide the necessary advance in general understanding that would be needed for publication in Nature Physics.

[blue89]

ABSTRACT

 

This is an interdisciplinary scientific research project to have a new form for treatment of cancer illness via modernizing its radiotherapy part under partial convenience of functional analysis’ completeness principle. I intended to take better results partially for cure of this illness and because of being systematized form of the same treatment,I do not expect to take worse results in comparison to existing treatment.however, it is clear that it would not be possible to explore whole of the real treatment via implementing this project even it be improved. In modern mathematics, there exist many type of functions and sequences or functional sequences.the project includes typically two methods and both of two methods based upon functional analysis’ application. And according to results of implemention,even if we take very little better results for tretament of cancer ,it will be possible to give the newest interperetations about euclid space especially about whether there exists a real space or spaces out of Euclid. this literature is rudiment and improvable.

 

this was official version which was submitted to nature physics.

Edited September 1, 2016 by blue89

[Strange]

yes ,ophiolitte . your all words are hurting

 

You said earlier:

i definitely support taking criticism.

no problem or no discussion on this issue.

 

Yes, it can be hard to take corrections and constructive criticism. But it is important to get over the emotion and focus on learning from it.

 

 

I have been contacting with many many journals & services & associations

why any of them did not mention about my english as you say that it was too poor.

 

It is not their job to do that. They wish to remain polite and so they make polite comments such as "We do not doubt the technical quality of your work" which means they haven't read it or they couldn't read it.

ABSTRACT

 

This is an interdisciplinary scientific research project to have a new form for treatment of cancer illness via modernizing its radiotherapy part under partial convenience of functional analysis’ completeness principle. I intended to take better results partially for cure of this illness and because of being systematized form of the same treatment,I do not expect to take worse results in comparison to existing treatment.however, it is clear that it would not be possible to explore whole of the real treatment via implementing this project even it be improved. In modern mathematics, there exist many type of functions and sequences or functional sequences.the project includes typically two methods and both of two methods based upon functional analysis’ application. And according to results of implemention,even if we take very little better results for tretament of cancer ,it will be possible to give the newest interperetations about euclid space especially about whether there exists a real space or spaces out of Euclid. this literature is rudiment and improvable.

 

this was official version which was submitted to nature physics.

 

OK. I will get back to you later today or tomorrow...

[blue89]

I have been quite confused!

 

You said earlier:

 

Yes, it can be hard to take corrections and constructive criticism. But it is important to get over the emotion and focus on learning from it.

 

 

It is not their job to do that. They wish to remain polite and so they make polite comments such as "We do not doubt the technical quality of your work" which means they haven't read it or they couldn't read it.

 

OK. I will get back to you later today or tomorrow...

 

there is still no discussion to take criticism already.

you ...

 

you don't want to understand .

I was implying the invisibility of evidence in almost all critiques.

otherwise no problem with this.

how wiill we be able to develop the science unless we be against criticism.

 

Strange , you are missing something...

SHOW ME THE INCORECTNESS. I DON'T BELIEVE YOUR WORDS NOW.

 

ABOUT GRAMMAR....

WHERE IS THE ERROR (IN ABSTRACT).

 

..

?

I must believe & obey Nikola Tesla's principles.

as I understood,

He was saying ; "winning hearts is the most valuable thing. money , scientific projects, studies , .. etc, nothing may be more valuable than hearts.

 

So ,if you are willing to discuss about it wholly,I might do it later via sharing almost wholly at forum.

 

already ,I have been looking for no money, no richness..

 

MY GOAL WOULD BE EARNING PEOPLE'S HEART & LOVES.

 

 

 

blue89

Edited September 1, 2016 by blue89

[DrKrettin]

This is an interdisciplinary scientific research project to have a new form for treatment of cancer illness via modernizing its radiotherapy part under partial convenience of functional analysis’ completeness principle. I intended to take better results partially for cure of this illness and because of being systematized form of the same treatment,I do not expect to take worse results in comparison to existing treatment.however, it is clear that it would not be possible to explore whole of the real treatment via implementing this project even it be improved. In modern mathematics, there exist many type of functions and sequences or functional sequences.the project includes typically two methods and both of two methods based upon functional analysis’ application. And according to results of implemention,even if we take very little better results for tretament of cancer ,it will be possible to give the newest interperetations about euclid space especially about whether there exists a real space or spaces out of Euclid. this literature is rudiment and improvable.

 

I have marked in red what is simply not acceptable English, and I am not being very critical.

[blue89]

This is an interdisciplinary scientific research project to have a new form for treatment of cancer illness via modernizing its radiotherapy part under partial convenience of functional analysis’ completeness principle. I intended to take better results partially for cure of this illness and because of being systematized form of the same treatment,I do not expect to take worse results in comparison to existing treatment.however, it is clear that it would not be possible to explore whole of the real treatment via implementing this project even it be improved. In modern mathematics, there exist many type of functions and sequences or functional sequences.the project includes typically two methods and both of two methods based upon functional analysis’ application. And according to results of implemention,even if we take very little better results for tretament of cancer ,it will be possible to give the newest interperetations about euclid space especially about whether there exists a real space or spaces out of Euclid. this literature is rudiment and improvable.

 

I have marked in red what is simply not acceptable English, and I am not being very critical.

 

What do you mean with underlined of your words at last sentence?.

Edited September 1, 2016 by blue89

[DrKrettin]

 

What do you mean with underlined of your words at last sentence?.

 

 

I mean that I could find more mistakes if I were really critical. The whole abstract needs to be re-written (in my opinion).

[Klaynos]

 

 

I mean that I could find more mistakes if I were really critical. The whole abstract needs to be re-written (in my opinion).

I think you were very very lax, there are very few sentence segments that are acceptable English.

[Arete]

ABSTRACT

 

 

Aside from the issues with grammar and sentence structure, this abstract does not actually say what the proceeding paper is actually about, what specific methodology you used or developed, or what your result is. Does your method improve radiotherapy? How and by how much? You need these details in the abstract. As an example, here is an abstract from a paper I am an author on that we published in Nature Scientific Reports:

 

Increasing prevalence and severity of multi-drug-resistant (MDR) bacterial infections has necessitated novel antibacterial strategies. Ideally, new approaches would target bacterial pathogens while exerting selection for reduced pathogenesis when these bacteria inevitably evolve resistance to therapeutic intervention. As an example of such a management strategy, we isolated a lytic bacteriophage, OMKO1, (family Myoviridae) of Pseudomonas aeruginosa that utilizes the outer membrane porin M (OprM) of the multidrug efflux systems MexAB and MexXY as a receptor-binding site. Results show that phage selection produces an evolutionary trade-off in MDR P. aeruginosa, whereby the evolution of bacterial resistance to phage attack changes the efflux pump mechanism, causing increased sensitivity to drugs from several antibiotic classes. Although modern phage therapy is still in its infancy, we conclude that phages, such as OMKO1, represent a new approach to phage therapy where bacteriophages exert selection for MDR bacteria to become increasingly sensitive to traditional antibiotics. This approach, using phages as targeted antibacterials, could extend the lifetime of our current antibiotics and potentially reduce the incidence of antibiotic resistant infections.

 

The highlighted phrases indicate that we explicitly state our methods, main result and main conclusion. These are the critical components of an abstract, and all are missing from yours.

Edited September 1, 2016 by Arete

[DrKrettin]

I think you were very very lax, there are very few sentence segments that are acceptable English.

 

I agree with you, but I didn't want to be too unkind. Abstracts are notoriously difficult to read, so I was giving him a lot of slack. The problem is that they are not individual errors, it needs to be completely re-written.

[Phi for All]

To me, the abstract seems to say that modern oncology isn't taking advantage of something in their radiotherapy protocols that involves Euclidean space, something that would provide better results in some area through some form of analysis that's very unclear. There are far too many references that aren't adequately explained (the "project" has two methods, but they aren't detailed at all?).

[DrKrettin]

Arete makes a much more important point, that the abstract does not actually qualify as an abstract. I was just focussing on blue89's specific challenge to find a grammatical error.

[blue89]

 

 

I mean that I could find more mistakes if I were really critical. The whole abstract needs to be re-written (in my opinion).

 

I think someones are not willing to speak in enough amount of clearance to take obvious decision.

I am also feeling surprised ,probably they do not realise how I am series.

 

NOTE : NOT ACCEPTABLE = INCORRECT

 

 

that words must not have been mistake LOOK THE REASONS/EVIDENCES (I AM COURAGEOUS (NOT HURTING) )

 

--->> EUCLID cannot be incorrect : I am mathematician and I know that Euclid space is constructed with only these planes

 

1) (x,y,0) 2) (x,0,z) 3) (0,y,z) (no existence OF any else plane)

 

--->> interpretation

 

cannot be incorrect why it will already be almost impossible to invent/explore the real >3D space. we will be able to make interpretations (not inventions)

 

--->> treatment cannot be inccorrect ...very clear.

 

.....

 

etc.

 

this abstract does not actually say what the proceeding paper is actually about, what specific methodology you used or developed, or what your result is. Does your method improve radiotherapy? How and by how much? You need these details in the abstract.

 

 

 

 

I MUST EXPRESS THAT THIS CRITIQUE IS VERY GOOD / MEANINGFULL

 

THANKS TO ARETE

Edited September 1, 2016 by blue89

[DrKrettin]

These are BASIC spelling errors.

 

Euclidean is correct, but euclid is not

 

treatment is correct but tretament is not

 

interpretation is correct, but interperetations is not

 

These spelling erros do not matter much on a forum, but an abstract is far more important.

Edited September 1, 2016 by DrKrettin

[blue89]

 

this abstract does not actually say what the proceeding paper is actually about, what specific methodology you used or developed, or what your result is. Does your method improve radiotherapy? How and by how much? You need these details in the abstract.

 

 

 

Dear Arete ;

 

the results & methododlogies & ... cannot be sumarised in abstract as they wanted.

 

because they would/allowe us to use between 150 and 250 words (no more words)

 

but only if only poject's rudiment will be >20 page. (too wide content)

the project's own will definitely spreads on over (at least) 200 page or more (and this will be only the part of mathematical discipline but there were three more disciplines ,too)

 

this project's rudiment which had been sent to harvard was 23 -25 page

Edited September 1, 2016 by blue89

[Arete]

Dear Arete ;

 

the results & methododlogies & ... cannot be sumarised in abstract as they wanted.

 

because they would/allowe us to use between 150 and 250 words (no more words)

 

The abstract I posted as an example contains all these key features and is 172 words. The entire point of an abstract is to summarize what you did, what you found and why it's relevant.

[blue89]

These are BASIC spelling errors.

 

Euclidean is correct, but euclid is not

 

treatment is correct but tretament is not

 

interpretation is correct, but interperetations is not

 

These spelling erros do not matter much on a forum, but an abstract is far more important.

 

REALLY I DO NOTT CARE THESE FAULTS .. I HAVE LIVED STRICTLY ECONOMIC DIFFICULTIES DURING WHOLE OF MY LIFE.

 

I AM GIVING CARE TO ONLY MEANINGS

 

 

VERYOEN SAYS YOUR ENGLISH IS TOO POOR (JUST LIKE "YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHINGS : many thanks for such expressıons you made me happy very much )

 

The abstract I posted as an example contains all these key features and is 172 words. The entire point of an abstract is to summarize what you did, what you found and why it's relevant.

 

BUT you are missing every journal may have different privacy policy.

 

your shared abstract and your accepted manuscript was accepted by scientific reports ,mine was to nature physics

 

these are different

Edited September 1, 2016 by blue89

[DrKrettin]

 

REALLY I DO NOTT CARE THESE FAULTS .. I HAVE LIVED STRICTLY ECONOMIC DIFFICULTIES DURING WHOLE OF MY LIFE.

 

I AM GIVING CARE TO ONLY MEANINGS

 

 

 

But you said this was official version which was submitted to nature physics.

 

Submitting it in that format which is barely literate is very stupid. Your choice.

[imatfaal]

This paper contends that the treatment of cancer through radiotherapy is at present suboptimal as the current methodology fails to engage with the mathematical analysis and statistical framework necessary to provide a full therapeutic regime. Mathematical Analysis - more specifically the Completeness Principle - provide foundations that all naturally occuring phenomena must adhere to; it is this papers assertion that through an amalgum of present medical practice and functional analysis the overall prognosis of those suffering from cancer can be significantly improved. We aim to show that this is the case through a rigorous statistical analysis of ...

[blue89]

 

But you said this was official version which was submitted to nature physics.

 

Submitting it in that format which is barely literate is very stupid. Your choice.

 

okay ,but thıs was not the actual ıssue .

 

look what the edıtor said at once (Nature Methods editor)

 

Dear,

The author will have the option to change submitted files later, if the editors wish to see the full paper.

If the file is incorrect or must be updated, I can change it for you if needed.

 

Best wishes,

Claire

 

 

 

this edtor was also saying spelling faults are not important for presubmissions

[Arete]

BUT you are missing every journal may have different privacy policy.

 

your shared abstract and your accepted manuscript was accepted by scientific reports ,mine was to nature physics

 

these are different

 

Both journals are Nature group journals and have the same confidentiality and editorial policies. Nat Physics specifies an unreferenced abstract of approximately 150 words, Sci Rep specifies an abstract of no more than 200 words - so all relevant policies are virtually identical.

 

Regardless, the purpose of an abstract is universal - from the Nat Physics author guidelines: "Abstract. Provide a general introduction to the topic and a brief nontechnical summary of your main results and their implication." Your abstract does not do this.

Edited September 1, 2016 by Arete

[blue89]

yes I am not spaking incorrectly or I am not lying.

 

look what ders had said.

 

 

Dear ....

 

Grammatical or spelling errors are not a problem. You only need an abstract or description in that box.

 

The system does not handle special characters in the title area very well. You can try, but I would suggest avoiding them.

 

The title can be over 150 letters, but we ask that you keep the title as short as possible, and include the rest of the information in the abstract.

 

Best,

...

 

yes I am not spaking incorrectly or I am not lying.

look what .... had said.

Dear ....

Grammatical or spelling errors are not a problem. You only need an abstract or description in that box.

 

The system does not handle special characters in the title area very well. You can try, but I would suggest avoiding them.

The title can be over 150 letters, but we ask that you keep the title as short as possible, and include the rest of the information in the abstract.

 

Best,

...