Completely agree - the quality of peer-review is a lottery. Sometimes you get an excellent referee making good points, other times you get a referee solely focussed on making sure you cite their work. And, occasionally, you get a referee who doesn't even appear to read the paper and just waves it through.
Agreed. Peer-review is essential. I do like the idea of a public peer review however, similar to that in the https://joss.theoj.org/ - I had a really pleasant experience reviewing a paper for JOSS.
I think sometimes reviewers hide behind their anonymity to give snarky responses, and using their power over you, knowing you will try your very best to implement all of their suggestions in order to publish faster. I just think the whole process should be more transparent.
I do a similar thing, but the papers I'm interested in are usually a bit too niche for a general audience. That's one of the things I don't like about academic papers, particularly in my field (astro), we don't tailor our abstracts and introductions to a wider audience.
You can use things like arxivsorter and benty-fields for this. You give them a list of papers you've published, or authors you are interested in and then get recommendations. The recommendations can be up and down voted to improve future recommendations.
> Let's face it, people don't want to watch a tiny team from nowhere vs a giant in UCL
The ESL encourages what you say people don't want. As founders can't be relegated they play every year even if they currently have a bad squad. The current UCL ensures the top teams in Europe the previous season compete.
Author's case eliminates the "self-hosted nginx on a VPS" part. While there is no big difference (just a personal preference) if Hugo, Jekyll or other tool is being used to generate HTML from Markdown.
Ah, thanks, I missed that. I also somehow missed the “Just work” requirement which could rule out hugo. In my experience it requires quite a bit of tinkering to get going.
I spent my early phd years working on the missing baryons, and it's a really interest topic. Theoretically the problem is solved, and hopefully in the next few years newer X-ray telescopes and local FRB detections will confirm the these predictions which are - the baryon's aren't missing, they are just residing at temperatures and densities which are currently hard to detect. I think the research problem should probably be termed "the unobserved baryons", since nobody believes they are missing, but unfortunately academia loves sensationalism as it leads to funding and citations.
It's also worth pointing out that LCDM is a cosmological framework. MOND (typically) has no cosmology.
And then even if MOND is correct - you likely still need something like DM to explain clusters (particularly the bullet cluster). It has also been included in the paper posted by OP as scalar field at early times, which then washes out at late times.
It is true though, MOND is hard to touch as an early career researcher!
