mastodon.online is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
A newer server operated by the Mastodon gGmbH non-profit

Server stats:

11K
active users

#Reviewer2

2 posts2 participants0 posts today
Möph<p>Just received the first request to review a scientific paper.<br>Now I can almost feel like a 'real' scientist.</p><p>Now, the hard question: will I become <a href="https://nerdculture.de/tags/Reviewer1" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Reviewer1</span></a> or <a href="https://nerdculture.de/tags/Reviewer2" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Reviewer2</span></a> <br><a href="https://nerdculture.de/tags/academicChatter" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>academicChatter</span></a></p>
Piia Bartos<p>Reviewer #2 said my 80 ns simulations are too short.</p><p>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...</p><p><a href="https://mastodontti.fi/tags/compchem" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>compchem</span></a> <a href="https://mastodontti.fi/tags/science" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>science</span></a> <a href="https://mastodontti.fi/tags/reviewer2" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>reviewer2</span></a> <a href="https://mastodontti.fi/tags/AcademicChatter" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>AcademicChatter</span></a></p>
eLife<p>Fed up with having to reconcile comments from Reviewer 1 and <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Reviewer2" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Reviewer2</span></a>?</p><p>At eLife, editors and reviewers discuss their reviews with each other before reaching a consensus, letting you focus on how to improve. <a href="https://elifesciences.org/about/peer-review?utm_source=mastodon&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_campaign=submissions_organic&amp;utm_content=consultative_fedup" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">elifesciences.org/about/peer-r</span><span class="invisible">eview?utm_source=mastodon&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_campaign=submissions_organic&amp;utm_content=consultative_fedup</span></a></p>

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.

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."
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.202
#BoycottElsevier #Elsevier #Reviewer2

doi.orgOrigin of the distinct site occupations of H atom in hcp Ti and Zr/HfThe location of the H atoms in Ti, Zr, and Hf is crucial to the formation of the hydrides in these metals as it influences the crystal lattice transfo…

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

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

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!