| ▲ | tux3 4 hours ago | |||||||
Realistically I don't see how this could be submitted to a journal as-is. I'm sure you could take this material and write a couple papers out of it, but right now this is a 60 page word document with commentary on a variety of topics from memory market economics to quantum computing. It's full of self-congratulatory language like "The transition is not an incremental improvement within the existing paradigm; it obsoletes the paradigm and the infrastructure built around it". Alright, I'm happy to believe that this work is important. But this is not the neutral tone of a scientific article, it reads like ad copy for a new technology. I'm sure there's interesting physics in there, but it needs a serious editing effort before it could be taken seriously by a journal. | ||||||||
| ▲ | iliatoli 4 hours ago | parent [-] | |||||||
The paper has been under peer review at Physica Scripta (IOP) since March 25. The reviewers will decide what stays and what's trimmed. You're reading a preprint, not the final version. The tone in the architecture sections reflects the scope of the claim — reviewers may ask me to moderate it, and I will. The core physics (Sections 2–3) is standard computational chemistry: DFT, transition state optimization, CCSD(T) validation. Those sections read like any other ab initio paper. | ||||||||
| ||||||||