I can't say much except I'm disappointed. The reviews sound very positive but they gave abysmally poor scores (2s) but no indication as to what was wrong with the paper. The only area for improvement someone gave was a couple of missing papers ( well we cutout far more than 2 papers to make it fit into a note).
Like many people I'm not convinced that the reviewers knew what they where talking about but manage to express this in such a vague way it was hard to pull them up on something specific which might have made a difference to the overall review. One good review might have been a good start.
To be honest I thought it had a reasonable chance of getting in and a better chance that some of the other papers that got better marks.
I'm starting to think that the thing that threw them was that we rejected the original hypothesis and then failed to come up with a convincing and ardent explication for what was going on. If the paper had just confirmed space syntax that would have worked. If we had said flatly this is because of X then I think they might have gone with it if it seemed plausible.
I think the thing that also went wrong was that we used fairly obscure syntax ( isovists ) and combined it with HCI/psychology style experiments. All of the reviewers didn't seem t understand the power of the winthin subjects 2*2*2 test and one critiqued the full reporting we did of all ANOVAs.
I don't know. I'm feeling like I've been defrauded by CHI. revolutionised
At least I'm not alone. May other researches think the same about their papers.
No comments:
Post a Comment