« Another Snow Day |
| Friday Mental Health Break: "Bad Project" »
January 28, 2011
What The Referees Really Think
I wish that more journals did this! Environmental Microbiology, which I have never looked at before, has published its favorite reviewer comments from the year just passed. They're not tied to the papers that generated them, naturally, but then, many of these manuscripts didn't quite make the cut:
"The biggest problem with this manuscript, which has nearly sucked the will to live out of me, is its terrible writing style."
"I usually try to be nice, but this paper has got to be one of the worst I have read in a long time."
"I suppose that I should be happy that I don't have to spend a lot of time reviewing this dreadful paper, however, I am depressed that people are performing such bad science."
"It is sad to see so much enthusiasm and effort go into analyzing a dataset that is just not big enough."
There are plenty more, including many from people who are actually happy about what they had to read (and yes, there are some). Check 'em out!
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature
POST A COMMENT
- RELATED ENTRIES
- How Not to Do It: NMR Magnets
- Allergan Escapes Valeant
- Vytorin Actually Works
- Fatalities at DuPont
- The New York TImes on Drug Discovery
- How Are Things at Princeton?
- Phage-Derived Catalysts
- Our Most Snorted-At Papers This Month. . .