u/optimal-username

Singing songs about America.

Most of the testimonies are about patriotism rather than the gospel. We’ve had 2 so far about their experience as veterans, seeing that the rest of the world is lame.

Today someone shared their testimony that the gospel couldn’t have been restored in any other country, because the saints would have been killed.. as if the saints didn’t flee the United States because they were getting killed there.

Am I alone in this?

Edit: Post got locked. Thanks for expressing your various opinions, even that one guy that told me I should leave the country if I don’t love our military (very peacemaker-y of you - lol your comment history is somehow exactly what I expected it to be). I didn’t mean to offend anyone. I am grateful for the degree of religious freedom that is allowed in the US, and hope to see that degree increase here and elsewhere.

I am a post doc and was asked to review a paper for a biology related journal, impact factor in the 5-10 range. I accepted and reviewed the paper. I was kind, but gave rather negative feedback for reasons relating to the novelty of the paper and insufficient support for some of its claims. On those grounds, and because it was unclear to me that the paper was even related to the topic of the journal, I confidentially suggested to the editor that it be rejected. Instead, they sent it back out for a rebuttal. This process has now been repeated 3 times. Is this normal? What am I supposed to do if an editor seemingly ignores that I keep clicking the “reject” button?

Edit: In this case, the problem with novelty was that this same group published a very similar paper 1 month ago. It is a machine learning paper, so all they did for this new part was tweak 1 parameter and re-applied it to the same cohort and honestly it doesn’t seem to have improved the results at all. So it wasn’t a case of novelty in the field, it’s that the lab seems to be re-packaging their own paper. Something I pointed out to the editor and that seems to have been ignored.

Edit 2: I agree that the editor knows their journal better than I do, but the journal website includes a 1 sentence description of their goal for the journal and I can’t for the life of me see how this paper is at all related to that goal. I can’t really be more specific than that without fear of being too specific.