Retorts to Reviewers of Manuscripts

[Parasaurolophus]

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.

[mamselle]

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.

[Myword]

    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.

[sinenomine]

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?

[mamselle]

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.

[ergative]

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.

[Wahoo Redux]

"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."

[sinenomine]

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.

[Myword]

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!

[Harlow2]

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.

[rxprof]

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.

[fizzycist]

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!!

[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?

[fizzycist]

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.

[Parasaurolophus]

It's been three and a half months, and it's just a short reply piece. Hurry the fuck up.