Rotten Tomatoes
Rotten tomatoes are reviews and processes (i.e., project managers) that set up an impossible-to-win situation; such a situation is hostile for reasons outside the proposal and proposing team.
Disruptive technology is not embraced. Great advances are disruptive; great advances are not embraced.
Rather than receiving merit-based reviews on proposals, great advances typically receive rotten tomatoes.
For Example, a statement of "he is not qualified" is a rotten tomato since a reviewer is not able to know precisely what a person who wrote a proposal is able to do or not able to do. That statement is not a reflection of a proposal, but rather, a reflection of a hostile reviewer who is not competent enough to provide accurate assessment of a technology described on the paper, and so, that reviewer resorts to unfounded personal attacks on the person who wrote the proposal.
Qualification to do research in an area is not bestowed by a degree; qualification to do research is a learned ability for critically evaluating data and picking out the signal from the noise. More often than not, a highly qualified researcher has a core background in science or engineering science which can be broadly applied to many applications.
Disruptive technology is not embraced. Great advances are disruptive; great advances are not embraced.
Rather than receiving merit-based reviews on proposals, great advances typically receive rotten tomatoes.
For Example, a statement of "he is not qualified" is a rotten tomato since a reviewer is not able to know precisely what a person who wrote a proposal is able to do or not able to do. That statement is not a reflection of a proposal, but rather, a reflection of a hostile reviewer who is not competent enough to provide accurate assessment of a technology described on the paper, and so, that reviewer resorts to unfounded personal attacks on the person who wrote the proposal.
Qualification to do research in an area is not bestowed by a degree; qualification to do research is a learned ability for critically evaluating data and picking out the signal from the noise. More often than not, a highly qualified researcher has a core background in science or engineering science which can be broadly applied to many applications.
NSF Pitch, SBIR, May 2023
DOT Pitch, Intersection Challenge, June 13, 2023
Strikewers UAV Swarm Challenge Submission, August 2023
DOT Pitch, Intersection Challenge, June 13, 2023
Strikewers UAV Swarm Challenge Submission, August 2023
Examples of rotten tomatoes in reviews include comments like:
- "The technology is not new and has limited upside"; WHEN neither the program manager nor the reviewer are able to identify previous publications that verify the concept is not new.
- A review without any identification of flaws in science or engineering and including patent-pending technology; where, the reviewer states, "the inventor is not qualified to perform the research". Is the reviewer saying the R&D should not be done, or is the reviewer saying the R&D should be done in violation of the patent-pending status? Is the reviewer trying to eliminate the competition in a certain area of R&D (because that is the only way that reviewer can get ahead)?