I wonder whether reviewers also can be blinded by maths. In which case adding some gratuitous equations could be a rational route to increasing chance of publication, though unfortunate (on the assumption that your disapproval is based on the equations making the papers less easy to read).
Not trying to argue here that "rational" behaviour excuses accepting a decline in paper quality* for the purposes of publication but that publication pressures might put the onus on reviewers.
*if there is an ethics of quality beyond its desirability
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
chiming
no subject
Date: 2013-01-01 11:46 am (UTC)From:Not trying to argue here that "rational" behaviour excuses accepting a decline in paper quality* for the purposes of publication but that publication pressures might put the onus on reviewers.
*if there is an ethics of quality beyond its desirability