Peer review: a drama in 3 lines

  1. I (as reviewer #1, after accepting an invitation from a 3rd-tier journal b/c the abstract sounded interesting): writes an 800-word review of a promising manuscript that tries to engage with the piece, makes some constructive suggestions for optional improvements and concludes with the rationale for ‘accept with minor revisions’ (“very interesting, clear, and exceptionally well-written manuscript …”)
  2. Reviewer #2: writes a rambling 180-word paragraph containing howlers such as “apparently, the intention to debunk clouds empathy” (what???), platitudes, and general meditations on the state of the world, and ends exactly nowhere.
  3. Editor of said 3rd-tier (on a very good day) journal: “A DECISION OF ‘REJECT’ HAS BEEN RENDERED FOR …”
Peer review: a drama in 3 lines 2
A rare image of rev #2 mid-review

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.