The reviews are not good..
painful to contemplate..."
The conceptual and technical descriptions in the paper are excellent and the paper: is generally very well written.
reviewer recommends the rejection of the paper due to
that he considers it to be completely out of scope for
have not yet been pained by finding any excessive
is not indeed an author adapted to superficial minds,”
author's go through a great deal of mathematical detail
is dull, dull, dull in a pretentious, florid and archly
there are any of our readers who wish to find examples of
rhetoric, involved syntax, stilted sentiment
and incoherent English, we will take the liberty of recommending to them this precious volume."
it is incoherent, and the passages that are plainly
devoid of wit..."
is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it."
one fairly serious flaw—that of outright unreadability.”
I decided to reject the paper for the following arguments: - the paper is extremely difficult to read, with the use of exotic formulations such as
"exquisite sensitivity", "orthodox spread-spectrum", "metadata is so easily lost", "we would like to make absolutely clear..." "is the spurious notion..."