Talk:WikiJournal Preprints/Algorithms for Categorical-Generative Analysis: Implementing an Inductive, Comparative Method for Social Processes based on Formal Language Theory
This article has been withdrawn by the submitting author for publication by the WikiJournal of Science.
It is archived here as a record. Discussion can be viewed below.
First submitted:
Withdrawn:
Article text
QID: Q107656570
Suggested (provisional) preprint citation format:
Bruno da Rocha Braga. "Algorithms for Categorical-Generative Analysis: Implementing an Inductive, Comparative Method for Social Processes based on Formal Language Theory". WikiJournal Preprints. Wikidata Q107656570.
License: 
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction, provided the original author and source are credited.
Gorla Praveen contact
Reviewers: (comments)Article information
This article has been withdrawn by the submitting author for publication by the WikiJournal of Science.
It is archived here as a record. Discussion can be viewed below.
Dear editor.
Do we have any news from the anonymous reviewer who was assigned to my paper?
Cordially,
Bruno
Dear Editor and Reviewer.
I am trying to publish my papers since 2017, but inexplicably the submissions do not go ahead. Since I first published my drafts on SSRN (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=2473372), it is possible to see how long it takes to have a feedback. Three of them are without any feedback since then.
The idea described on my paper in WikiJournal is on my SSRN page since 2017. You can see that the paper at http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/154234/ talks about the same idea, but its draft was published in june of 2021.
I choose WikiJournal of Science in the hope for a transparent, fast and open peer review. However, the reviewer is anonymous. Is it really necessary? Can I trust on a fair process?
Cordially,
Bruno da Rocha Braga 00:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Hello @Brunobraga:,
- Approx 80% of reviewers for the WikiJournals choose to have their identities open rather than anonymous. In these cases their comments (and author responses) are still publicly viewable (on this page). Additionally, although anonymous, their fields of expertise will be listed on the wikidata record (previous example). We've found that insisting on open identity can cause some reviewers to simply retract their offer to review, so we try to provide as much transparency whilst de-identifying the review if they request it. You can also see the guidance criteria that we provide to reviewers to use (though obviously different reviewers will adhere to these more or less closely). I hope that info helps. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 06:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
The WikiJournal of Science is not a serious academic journal. Although I warned the editor that my articles could be sabotaged, questioning the reason for an anonymous reviewer, after two years the anonymous reviewer gave up and I withdrew the submission. The content of the article involves undergraduate-level knowledge in computer science, and even though there may have been difficulty in finding interested reviewers, it would have been enough for me to be consulted by the editor, requesting a reviewer recommendation, which never happened. I intended to test the Open Peer Review of the WikiJournal with this submission, but the result proved that it is subject to sabotage.
Bruno Braga