Retorts to Reviewers of Manuscripts

[quasihumanist]

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.

[Parasaurolophus]

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.

[sinenomine]

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!

[Myword]

 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.