There are some major issues with this article, including with its central thesis: that CCP is underdiscussed as an origin for common English words and phrases. Conclusion: This article was not peer reviewed in any meaningful way.) It would have benefited greatly from actual peer review. (How do we know it was a predatory journal? It was published a week and a half after being submitted, which is absurd the author paid $100 for the article to be published and, crucially, all of the issues I'm about to mention would have been picked up by even the most rudimentary of peer reviewers. This is an interesting article, but is harmed by being published in a predatory journal. /r/homeworkhelp, /r/writing or /r/grammar for other stuff that doesn't belong here.Īlso, if you are new to reddit, see /r/newtoreddit./r/academicpublishing: Academic Publishing Forum./r/LanguageLearning, /r/TowerOfBabel: Language Learning Tips./r/translationstudies: Translation Theory./r/cognitivelinguistics: Cognitive Linguistics./r/languagetechnology: Natural Language Processing./r/asklinguistics: Another place to ask questions./r/badlinguistics: For all the bad linguistics on reddit and elsewhere.The context of the discussion and the commenter's history on reddit will be taken into account when the moderators consider a ban. If such comments are perceived by moderators and users who report the comments to be not merely misinformed, but also inflammatory, derogatory, bigoted, or prejudiced in some way, the moderators will ban the user. ![]() Such comments without the proper documentation are subject to removal (and see our commenting policies if you have any doubts about whether the removal was justified). Insults and attacks will result in an immediate ban.Ĭomments that contradict major findings of linguistics or its related disciplines are expected to provide academic sources that support their claims.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |