While the paper is well-written overall, contributions on adaptation of alien technology as well as comparison with state-of-the-art are not made clear.
Authors should consider using TikZ to create the diagrams. My Kindle e-reader had difficulty scaling and displaying the diagrams.
The paper’s tone could benefit from more technicality.
The terms “alien”, “ET”, “technology”, and “stuff” have been used ambiguously throughout the paper. The authors should consider including a table of nomenclature.
The experimental results don’t appear to provide sufficient statistical significance on how much the mankind’s genitalia could be pleased using the alien apparatus. The results would be more conclusive if the application of the apparatus on extraterrestrial genitalia is studied too. This has the additional benefit of avoiding to fall for spurious relationships.
They made me go back and demonstrate that stream discharge increases during a flood, and I’m the end we spent so much time and effort working on it, the whole thing changed into a comparative analysis between rainfall and peak discharge.
The first panel is popular media, not computer scientists.
The computer scientist would write papers about how they adapted principles of the alien technology to our stuff.
Papers that would be released 5 years after the engineer got doom to run on it.
If accepted.
Reviewer’s comments:
And now I’m having publication flashbacks.
They made me go back and demonstrate that stream discharge increases during a flood, and I’m the end we spent so much time and effort working on it, the whole thing changed into a comparative analysis between rainfall and peak discharge.
They critiqued us so hard we changed topics.
Peer review. We know we need it, but we hate it.
God damn big academia at it again!