Just received the first request to review a scientific paper.
Now I can almost feel like a 'real' scientist.

Now, the hard question: will I become #Reviewer1 or #Reviewer2
#academicChatter

Reviewer #2 said my 80 ns simulations are too short.

I would also like longer simulations. However, I simulated the whole RNA Polymerase I complex with DNA with about 800k atoms. Which is far larger than usual systems in MD simulations. If I wanted microsecond scale simulations for this system, I would need months of calculation time. Furthermore, the simulations were not the main point of the story, they just supported the experiments...

Fed up with having to reconcile comments from Reviewer 1 and #Reviewer2?

At eLife, editors and reviewers discuss their reviews with each other before reaching a consensus, letting you focus on how to improve. https://elifesciences.org/about/peer-review?utm_source=mastodon&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=submissions_organic&utm_content=consultative_fedup

Academics giving feedback be like

"What you did really well - and I think you should discuss this with your PI - is highlight all the ways in which you still need to improve your writing and thinking."

Bekomme die zweite Antwort der Reviewer nach den ersten Korrekturen wieder.
#Reviewer2 ist glücklich und empfiehlt die Veröffentlichung.
#Reviewer1 ist eigentlich zufrieden. Will nur eine Kleinigkeit:
Ich soll bitte die wichtigste Abbildung des Papers rausnehmen.

Es ist immer noch die wichtigste Abbildung!
Aber zum Glück bekomme ich Rückendeckung der Chefin:
"Nimms raus, dann haben wirs publiziert."

Danke.

Our paper: "Through the rigourous evaluation of our approach, we identified the limitations of X and Y."
#reviewer2: "Your approach has the limitations X and Y. Reject."

#pearls of #peerreview

Oh. Heute kam die Antwort vom Journal.
Major Revisions.
Hab die Details der Reviewer noch nicht gelesen.
#AcademicChatter #Reviewer2

Favourite German #reviewer2 phrase: 'vielfältig defizitär' = displaying a whole variety of deficiencies. Particularly nasty, b/c vielfältig has positive connotations #AcademicChattter

Be honest: how often do you check journal websites for updates on your submission (multiple choice available if it varies)?

Curious if anyone would like to share thoughts/experience with Qeios and their public peer review approach?

Is this a legitimate initiative? Or something to be wary of?

Definition of “Savage”:

“As strongly requested by the reviewers, here we cite some references [[35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]] although they are completely irrelevant to the present work.”

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2024.10.197

Für dieses Qualitätsediting und hilfreiches Review zahlen wir doch gerne 37.95$ um hinter die #Paywall zu kommen:

"As strongly requested by the reviewers, here we cite some references [[35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]] although they are completely irrelevant to the present work."
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2024.10.197
#BoycottElsevier #Elsevier #Reviewer2

Dear #reviewer2, we appreciate your suggestion, but further analysis could not be conducted. One co-author has moved two positions since the original draft was written and has no idea where their original data is, while a second co-author has moved to another institute and isn't talking with their former boss, who is holding the data hostage.
#academicchatter

I've backed "Publish or Perish: A Humorous Party Game about Academia" and, trust me, you should too

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/maxhuibai/publish-or-perish-1/

Love that feeling of having multiple years of painful work discarded as nothing by a reviewer who's feedback is so consistently wrong or just outright idiotic. Unfortunately, all I can do is try to incorporate their handful of decent suggestions (and pettily delete any pre-existing references to their work, of c.).

ECRs should really support each other to produce the best work, not drown one another in mansplaining. Ugh! #PhdLife #Reviewer2 #PeerReview

Finally, after over 2 years in internal editing hell, one "out-of-scope-of-the-journal" rejection, a mild case of #reviewer2 and 4 rounds of proof corrections, the paper on our #NeuroOCT #microscope #integrated optical coherence tomography (#oct #opticalcoherencetomography) system and #clinical #study is published.

https://doi.org/10.1364/BOE.530976

#scicomm

In case you wondered, what I've been up to the past 5 years: That. Among other things.

It's been repeated often enough to have become a cliché. But WHY is reviewer #2 more critical of your manuscript than reviewer #1? What could the mechanism be? Comment your own pet theory!

Reviewer2's gonna #reviewer2

@reviewer2