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