Sometimes you have to laugh about what gets published; sometimes it's annoying, but in general I don't care.
Programs should be written and polished until they acquire publication quality.
The very bulk of scientific publications is itself delusive. It is of very unequal value; a large proportion of it, possibly as much as three-quarters, does not deserve to be published at all, and is only published for economic considerations which have nothing to do with the real interests of science.
In an ideal world, you might imagine that scientific papers were only cited by academics on the basis of their content. This might be true. But lots of other stuff can have an influence.
I have seen journals with good financial backing and editorial support die because they looked so bad nobody wanted to publish them.
You really burden the reader if you put things in but, "Oh, it's not interesting, but I'll put it in anyway." Then the reader's going to think, like, "Mmm... no thanks." So the thing is to cut all that stuff out before its published.
I'm impressed with how 'Newsweek's' outstanding staff has continued to put out a lively, well-informed magazine after the departure of their tireless editor, Jon Meacham.
We're going to try and recruit the very best people we can and produce the best papers we can, and publish them to the highest standards we can .
Sports Illustrated is very serious about their covers. They'll never say, like, 'Oh you got it.'
