Quote from: Myword on 27 January 2022, 15:47:04
On the "Wish you Could Say" thread...
QuoteQuoteWhat about retorts to reviewers of manuscripts?
1. This paragraph or quoted author is not relevant to topic.
Yes it is. The fact that you don't see that shows you don't understand or you disagree with it or dislike the quoted author.
2. It makes no new contribution.
Oh, like your writing does? You did not read this carefully, or missed it. Or perhaps you have no interest in this anyway and this is merely a courtesy review.
3. This has been done too much already.
You have not read the literature on this recently or you are not interested in it. So what? Most journal articles in this field are redundant. So are you.
We could maybe start a thread on this...
I can think of a few as well...
So, have at it!
All the things you every muttered under your breath, or screamed in an open cornfield...or wanted to...
M.
I was once told that my Physics paper had no physics in it.
I was also once told that that my contribution was the worst paper ever written by the particular group for which I worked (reviews for that journal were not blind).
I have had exactly one paper accepted without need for revision! Thank God that dude had a fishing trip that weekend (or whatever it was...).
Reviewer #2 claims that Figure 1 is unnecessary. Well figure 1 is a diagram of the experimental design. Had you fully understood the experiment, aka looked at the %$#@ing diagram, over half of your subsequence critiques would have been answered. So I think that Figure 1 is necessary.
My favorite comment that I am working on is "how can you cite a source in 2022 when I received your manuscript to review in 2021? This is impossible and since I cannot access a source in the future, it must be fake."
I don't make the copyright rules! My book came out in 2019 but has a 2020 copyright. Who cares? You can find the source; heck, I got it from the library!
My coauthor's response: "We are going to blow their mind when we tell them we are from the future!"
Quote from: darkstarrynight on January 28, 2022, 11:51:28 AM
My favorite comment that I am working on is "how can you cite a source in 2022 when I received your manuscript to review in 2021? This is impossible and since I cannot access a source in the future, it must be fake."
I don't make the copyright rules! My book came out in 2019 but has a 2020 copyright. Who cares? You can find the source; heck, I got it from the library!
My coauthor's response: "We are going to blow their mind when we tell them we are from the future!"
Probably published on the other side of the International Date Line.
AR.
Quote from: mythbuster on January 28, 2022, 09:49:12 AM
Reviewer #2 claims that Figure 1 is unnecessary. Well figure 1 is a diagram of the experimental design. Had you fully understood the experiment, aka looked at the %$#@ing diagram, over half of your subsequence critiques would have been answered. So I think that Figure 1 is necessary.
Heh. I had Reviewer #2 complain that I neglected to control for [variable], and so my design was fundamentally flawed. Except I also had Figure 1, a diagram of the stimulus creation, which made it perfectly clear that [variable] was meticulously controlled for.
Not that I had a chance to say that, since the paper was outright rejected, rather than R&Red.
Excellent idea!
Quote from: Ruralguy on January 28, 2022, 09:31:01 AM
I was once told that my Physics paper had no physics in it.
I've gotten that sort of thing a few times, especially for a paper that involved quite a bit of original historical research (my point was that the evidence--which this constituted the first attempt to collect!--gave considerable weight to the philosophical view I was advancing). It was subsequently published in a T5 generalist journal, but that comment came at a low point and really left me questioning what I was doing.
My postdoc supervisor, who's, like, one of the top one or two people in the world in this subfield, got a comment a couple of years ago asking if he was an undergraduate.
My contribution comes from a recent report, in which R2 said that our paper suffered from the fatal flaw of citing the Sherlock Holmes and Poirot stories as examples of cozy mysteries (alongside Marple, Rosemary and Thyme, etc.). Apparently "there is strong reason to think that this grouping is dubious". No such reasons are offered. Never mind that these are
canonical examples of foundational cozy mysteries
which helped to define the genre. They're certainly not hard-boiled detective fiction or noir. WTF is R2 smoking?
My favorite is a review I received last year, which has two sentences "it's difficult to be understood by readers. also, it contains many sub-figures". This was from a top journal in my field.
Your opinion about what constitutes a practically significant effect, supported by your as-yet-unpublished paper, means a lot less than you think it does.
1) Well, if you would have read the extended methods section in the Online Only Supplement submitted with, and referred to in, the main manuscript, as your reviewed the paper, you would have gotten answers, and references, for your criticisms/concerns of the methods in your review and then you wouldn't have to read this response to your review--saving all of us valuable time.
2) No, I would prefer to submit the paper on the topic I wrote--not completely change it to a totally different direction and focus because of something you found interesting in the data we report. I am glad that was interesting to you, but it is a very minor part of the big picture we are presenting. Perhaps we will address that in a follow-up study...
When I was in grad school in history I was told early on not to use "clanking machinery" phrases along the lines of "This survey will examine X," passive voice constructions, etc. While working on my MLS I had a prof insist that I do so. Unsaid retort: "Okay, if you want me to make my smoothly-running machinery clank, I'll make it clank." And I did.
The NYT Book Review actually published a review in which the reviewer likened the experience of reading the book to being "trapped inside a drum being beaten by a clown." I remember wincing when I saw that. The next issue carried an understandably irate letter from the author.
Quote from: apl68 on February 03, 2022, 08:05:45 AM
The NYT Book Review actually published a review in which the reviewer likened the experience of reading the book to being "trapped inside a drum being beaten by a clown." I remember wincing when I saw that. The next issue carried an understandably irate letter from the author.
The NYT Book Review is more progressive in this regard than academic journals. The "Open Review" model at some new journals do provide this kind of exchange.
Imagined retort from awhile ago, apparently still simmering:
To Rev. 1: "No, I'm not doing anything like the work you're doing. For one thing, I look at the primary sources, and work from them extensively. You've bragged publicly about 'just using the secondary work, it's good enough....' . In your case, the book you wrote shows it. I should be flattered you turned my article (which locates a previously undescribed liturgical play and all the pieces it takes to perform it) down cold. You probably felt threatened by it."
To Rev. 2: "If I wanted to do deconstructive work on this piece, I'd do it, but it seemed a bit premature to throw the whole deconstructive panoply at a text that still needs to be confirmed as fully re-constructed, first. I'll leave that to the folks who like to tear things down; me, I like to build them up (and I apologize for not citing your particular article, which is in a different region and era, and is about a completely different kind of play, in my piece, as well)."
Since I'd already submitted previous, less complete versions of the piece to the other two journals that might have taken it (because I hadn't turned up a couple of the key voussoirs that would complete the narrative arc of the play and didn't think I was going to, before that) there's probably no other place to send to (a feature, or it may be a bug, of the humanities' lack of a thousand publication outlets for every known topic that the sciences enjoy).
Sic transit gloria...
M.
I don't have access to read this paper, but the title and abstract are pretty fun...
"Dear Reviewer 2: Go F' Yourself," published a couple years ago in Social Science Quarterly
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ssqu.12824?
Quote from: Liquidambar on February 03, 2022, 02:37:19 PM
I don't have access to read this paper, but the title and abstract are pretty fun...
"Dear Reviewer 2: Go F' Yourself," published a couple years ago in Social Science Quarterly
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ssqu.12824?
I've sent you a link by PM.
Quote from: Liquidambar on February 03, 2022, 02:37:19 PM
I don't have access to read this paper, but the title and abstract are pretty fun...
"Dear Reviewer 2: Go F' Yourself," published a couple years ago in Social Science Quarterly
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ssqu.12824?
Indeed!
M.
I didn't read your comments because I don't care what you think. I am surprised you found 2 reviewers who understood the paper, and then it took you seven months. Now you will continue publishing articles few people will read nor advance the subject at all. The article was not meant for your obscure journal anyway...too intellectual for you.
I sent my article to your journal because it corrects an error in an article that appeared in your journal last year. You swiftly rejected it. Another journal (which in my eyes is superior to yours) just as swiftly accepted it. Were you unwilling to publish something that made your vetting of the earlier article look lax?
Just for varieties sake.....
Not yet a reply to an acceptance, but a positive reply to an encouraging suggestion to make a submission:
Thanks!
M.
Reviewer, I think you might think I'm not a native English speaker, judging from your comments like, "In English, don't use comparative forms without mentioning the 'object of comparison' in the same sentence." and your request that I have the document professionally proofread due to errors of style and grammar.
1. I am a native English speaker. Are you, though? Because your comments repeatedly say things like "evoid doing <x>" and "please show these figures in the section where they belong to," which makes me a little bit suspicious of your style suggestions.
2. It is not true that in English we always include the object of comparison with all comparatives, but I grant that it's often clearer if we do. Or should I say, 'it's often clearer if we do than if we don't'? I think you would think so, but in this case I don't think so.
3. You're dreaming if you imagine I'll have any decision about the location of figures in the final typeset book chapter, but I do take your point about the typo-riddled reference section. Sorry about that. I ran it through bibtex and called it a day, and of course I should do better.
4. I think we might have to agree to disagree on comma usage.
5. Actually, I can see my own evolution as a writer through your comments. This is a very old paper that has suddenly been revived, and you're picking out points that I now regularly harangue my students about. Thank you for reading so carefully. Your substantive comments are helpful and insightful, and the paper will be better because of them.
6. I'm still charting my own path re:commas, though.
"Dear Editor, your final reader is clearly having a temper tantrum because you badgered him (at least he certainly sounded like a fat, flatulent, foul-tempered patriarch) to review my article after almost a year of holding it in his ass----and yet you still decided to 'decline' after my careful revisions and then stringing me along for a year. Trust me, I told everyone I know about your abominable reviewer. It's too bad because you seem like rather a nice sort.
"Well, F*** off and die. Sincerely, Wahoo."
Dear Reviewer #2: I'm sorry you don't understand the title of the article. The editor and Reviewer #1 do, and I like the title, so ... ignoring your whiny comment.
You could not send me a rejection note? I had to find out from your website. Wow, great follow through and not even answering my email about this? Your assistant dropped the ball!
Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your reading of the ms. A central critique is that the paper does not follow the correct format. However, I used the exact format indicated in the author guidelines—it is the same format used by a paper in the last issue. It is a bit unusual, and I would not otherwise have structured the paper the way I did. I wonder if you are familiar with that section of the journal.
Dear Reviewer #1, It's unfortunate that you didn't understand that this was an online experiment in which people faced a hypothetical choice. Instead you wrote out 5 pages of criticism because of you thought it was a real clinical trial. We acknowledge that the words "hypothetical," "online survey," and "vignette" were only included in the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion - it clearly should have been more frequent. Enjoy reading the 15+ page response table given you shared over 75 concerns.
Dear Reviewer #2, Four positive sentences with no recommendations for improvement. I have no words left in me after responding to Reviewer 1. Thank you.
Quote from: Ruralguy on January 28, 2022, 09:31:01 AM
I was once told that my Physics paper had no physics in it.
I got a review like that too back in grad school!! I've also gotten "no new chemistry" and the classic "no clear applications" in society physics journals.
But honestly I rarely get pissed about peer reviews. What drives me fucking insane are the editors who try to tell me what science is important, fundamental, impactful, broadly interesting (and how my manuscript is not any of that). IDGAF your thoughts on this asshole, you are WRONG, now send my paper out for review to the real experts!!
Quote from: fizzycist on September 20, 2022, 08:55:15 PM
But honestly I rarely get pissed about peer reviews. What drives me fucking insane are the editors who try to tell me what science is important, fundamental, impactful, broadly interesting (and how my manuscript is not any of that). IDGAF your thoughts on this asshole, you are WRONG, now send my paper out for review to the real experts!!
I'm curious about this field difference. When I submit a paper, I pretty much always submit to someone on the editorial board who appreciates the area and type of research in the paper. You don't have that option?
Quote from: quasihumanist on September 20, 2022, 09:35:52 PM
Quote from: fizzycist on September 20, 2022, 08:55:15 PM
But honestly I rarely get pissed about peer reviews. What drives me fucking insane are the editors who try to tell me what science is important, fundamental, impactful, broadly interesting (and how my manuscript is not any of that). IDGAF your thoughts on this asshole, you are WRONG, now send my paper out for review to the real experts!!
I'm curious about this field difference. When I submit a paper, I pretty much always submit to someone on the editorial board who appreciates the area and type of research in the paper. You don't have that option?
Most journals I submit to have an editor in a related sub-field. But that's about it, you submit via web portal and (aside from a few exceptions like the AAAS journals) it gets routed to whichever editor is handling those keywords at the time. There are a few editors/journals who, despite several submissions, have never once sent my group's papers for review. It's hard to see them as "appreciating" my area and type of research!
Reviewers, on the other hand, are likely to be in my sub-sub-sub field.
It's been three and a half months, and it's just a short reply piece. Hurry the fuck up.
Quote from: fizzycist on September 20, 2022, 10:03:18 PM
Quote from: quasihumanist on September 20, 2022, 09:35:52 PM
Quote from: fizzycist on September 20, 2022, 08:55:15 PM
But honestly I rarely get pissed about peer reviews. What drives me fucking insane are the editors who try to tell me what science is important, fundamental, impactful, broadly interesting (and how my manuscript is not any of that). IDGAF your thoughts on this asshole, you are WRONG, now send my paper out for review to the real experts!!
I'm curious about this field difference. When I submit a paper, I pretty much always submit to someone on the editorial board who appreciates the area and type of research in the paper. You don't have that option?
Ah - I think journals in my field have generally had more technology-resistant or workflow-change-resistant editorial boards. Since, back in the mail 5 copies days (before my time), you had the option of sending the 5 copies to any member of the editorial board, the journals have preserved the option of naming a specific member of the editorial board to submit to. There are still many journals that give you the option of submitting by emailing an editorial board member, and even a few where that is the only method of submission.
Most journals I submit to have an editor in a related sub-field. But that's about it, you submit via web portal and (aside from a few exceptions like the AAAS journals) it gets routed to whichever editor is handling those keywords at the time. There are a few editors/journals who, despite several submissions, have never once sent my group's papers for review. It's hard to see them as "appreciating" my area and type of research!
Reviewers, on the other hand, are likely to be in my sub-sub-sub field.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 28, 2022, 07:44:50 PM
It's been three and a half months, and it's just a short reply piece. Hurry the fuck up.
Guess you read my post.
But you somehow missed that
this is a reply piece. Uuuugh.
While I'm at it, just a brief vent of spleen: I just don't know how to crack this journal. It's one of the two top journals in my subfield, and I publish in the other one all the time. I've published stuff rejected by this one in piles of tippy-top generalist journals. But this bloody journal has it in for me, I swear.
Just got peer reviews on an article, which was accepted, despite one of the reviewers saying they didn't trust some of my claims (the other reviewer was quite happy with everything). The non-truster also questioned a term I used, and their comments suggest to me that they didn't read the article very attentively. Sure would like to ask, did you actually read this, or just hurriedly skim it? Be the reviewer you want others to be for you!
So the article does not totally fit your journal? Can't accept anything original? You could at least send it to reviewers and let them decide.
Bah! I can't even get reviewers to read it. And after I rewrote it with their damn style rules.