Okay, so you just ducked the evidence that you have utterly fabricated your claims of scientific accomplishment.
Now, I didn't make an issue here of my status as an academic; you made it an issue after stalking me to discover who I were. And I didn't make an issue of your alleged accomplishments as an academic; you did, in an attempt to claim superiority.
I didn't have much need, felt or objective, to defend my academic accomplishment; I was only concerned to refute your claims that I'd managed to get published by doing something somehow disgraceful. I wasn't concerned with some absurd hierarchy; and, in that context, incongruities in your claims had to accumulate before I noticed them.
But this fabrication amounts to a further exhibition of who and what you are; and, as I said, I'm willing to participate towards that end.
Like I said, I don't care if you think I fabricated anything. Because you have no idea who I am so I have no need to defend myself. But everything I've said about publications and whatnot is 100% true. I DID say that my field doesn't care about journals, look up at a few messages before, where I stated that "I also have some ACM journals but my field doesnt care about journals, it's a quirk in my field." Go ask your friends who have been grad students in CS (if you have any haha) and ask them about that or just do a google search about conferences vs journals in CS. I do have pubs at SOSP and OSDI which are systems conferences, not theory or math related, I was in a systems lab at a top ranked institution in the past (not recently, graduated a while ago). And everything I said about hte elitism is 100% true, and we do not look at websites that rank journals or conferences, every single person at this level knows what are the best venues (always conferences) in our respective fields (SOSP, OSDI, NSDI for mine, but for others you have Siggraph, sigcomm, ipsn, nips, etc etc). Again, go and ask literally anyone you know who has a doctorate from a top rank institution in CS and they will confirm everything I'm saying. Don't fall for ad hominem attacks here lol since you seem to be so aware of logic fallacies. But again, you have no idea who I am nor do you really care, we are talking about YOU and asking about YOU! If you want to think I'm all lies about my accomplishments go for it!
So back to you! Why do you still try so hard and publish? Were you a failed graduate student? I honestly don't understand the mentality here. As soon as I defended I never wrote another paper again (although that's my failure in not getting any tenure track positions, and not even a research lab like MSR, total fail on my part). If you care so much about publications why didn't you just try and self fund a phd or something?? AT least you would have an advisor who could guide you cuz you really are just flailing here. And I mean you seem to want a doctorate no? You even call yourself an economist but that's one of those fields where at the least you need a masters but really a PhD if you want to be taken seriously.
Also for your lone citation, I went ahead and downloaded the paper via my alumni instituational access. I figure you don't have that access so I'm not even sure how you get papers to read (unless you are buying at those ridiculous prices). Anyway here's the paragraph for your lone citation:
"Aiming to analyze the qualitative methodology, the main techniques used in the different articles were grouped into the individual interview (IE), group interview (GI), observation (Obs), visual storytelling method (VS), storytelling workshop (WS), narration storytelling (NS), performance text (PT), and current heterodox analytic narratives (CHAN). The data were analyzed using textual analysis (TA), content analysis (CA), secondary base data analysis (SBDA), images/performances (IP), and content-semiotic analysis (CSA) (Peirce’s theory of semiotic analysis). An interpretation of the signal (Mc Kiernan, 2021) [41] may be incomplete. In addition, the location was grouped into national (N) or international (I) studies. Scope and sample were also identified, as well as other aspects that could be considered relevant. Finally, aiming to identify variables, indicators, and their relationships (models), the results were evaluated. Besides, the relevant aspects that don’t belong to the initial structure of the frame were als"
Does this sound like a legit citation from your paper? Or was this a 'someone's abtract mentioned something somewhat tangental so just plopped it there.' Just wondering if your lone citation was actually real. BTW I'll tell you right now, self published papers don't get citations cuz citations is partly a political game where you make sure you have obligatory refs to all the power players in your field, especially those who sit on the steering committees. I only read papers from the main research confs and mainly from the other labs in the space, there's no way I'd ever spend time reading something from someone I never heard of, regardless if it's good or not, there's simply not enoguh time. Your work will never have any impact, you probably won't get anyone besides your reviewers to read it, simply because you are unaffiliated and have no degree, it doesn't even matter how good your work actually is. If you want to make any impact you got to join a program and have an affiliation, surely you know that. I'm not even insulting you at this point, just really wondering how someone like you ticks. If you are a failed grad student at least you would have some training from your advisor but it seems like you just wandered into this with no idea how anything works, relying on google searches for journals to target?
