Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Ars Technica)   Study of peer reviews has yet to be peer reviewed   (arstechnica.com) divider line
    More: Amusing, Peer review, Behavior, Iowa State's David Peterson, Academic publishing, 2006 albums, Chupacabra, Dear Reviewer, editor of the journal  
•       •       •

717 clicks; posted to Geek » on 28 Jun 2020 at 4:25 AM (6 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



6 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-06-28 4:34:52 AM  
... holy shiat, in around 2/3 of my published papers it was reviewer 3 that was the asshole making me tear out my hair over largely-irrelevant objections and too-finnicky inquiries into methodology.

Half-Life 3 confirmed, I guess.

// Probably has something to do with publications picking them in order and the first two tending to be in a closely-related enough field of study to already know the answers to the frustrating shiat requiring a lengthy explanation that the third guy in the not-quite-as-related field wants explained.  Kind of like how thesis review boards work.
 
2020-06-28 10:47:55 AM  

Jim_Callahan: ... holy shiat, in around 2/3 of my published papers it was reviewer 3 that was the asshole making me tear out my hair over largely-irrelevant objections and too-finnicky inquiries into methodology.

Half-Life 3 confirmed, I guess.

// Probably has something to do with publications picking them in order and the first two tending to be in a closely-related enough field of study to already know the answers to the frustrating shiat requiring a lengthy explanation that the third guy in the not-quite-as-related field wants explained.  Kind of like how thesis review boards work.


From what I'm told at least, the mix tends to work out to, "Person that's liable to be enthusiastic/positive about the subject, person that's liable to be the storm crow and point out problems, both followed by, "That one dick that farking hates everything and everyone SO MUCH OMGZ!"  Article seems to bear that out - it's about as bad as the internet is for sheer "Fark you you random SOB!" when it's not actually "Fark you you person vaguely related institutionally to some guy that made me mad 18 years ago!"
 
2020-06-28 11:43:14 AM  

Jim_Callahan: ... holy shiat, in around 2/3 of my published papers it was reviewer 3 that was the asshole making me tear out my hair over largely-irrelevant objections and too-finnicky inquiries into methodology.

Half-Life 3 confirmed, I guess.

// Probably has something to do with publications picking them in order and the first two tending to be in a closely-related enough field of study to already know the answers to the frustrating shiat requiring a lengthy explanation that the third guy in the not-quite-as-related field wants explained.  Kind of like how thesis review boards work.


I hear you on the last part about lengthy explanations needed for some reviewers vs. others. Past few, it is never about methods/findings but "can you add a whole new intro section on ____ to explain the history and links of this one small particular finding that is encompassed already in the intro's larger review." Mainly frustrating since most times, the paper length is at the word count for the journal anyhow.

My last paper though man was a reviewer 2 nightmare, longest I've ever had in submission, with multiple revision requests only from r2 after r1 fully approved. The kicker though was on one revision, they read an earlier version of the manuscript and gave different feedback then they had at the time (sadly even then editor allowed them to reread new version and still require another revision). I mean it got through in the end, but took months longer than it should have.
 
2020-06-28 3:34:05 PM  
Ok my last paper it was reviewer 2, and their criticism made me believe that they didn't even bother to read it. Plus I knew exactly who it was based on their comments. Dummy.
 
2020-06-28 6:17:30 PM  
Peer review is kinda silly.  America has no peers, and all that jousting and inbreeding means most peers are twits. They should have other scientists review stuff.
 
2020-06-28 7:12:34 PM  

leeksfromchichis: Peer review is kinda silly.  America has no peers, and all that jousting and inbreeding means most peers are twits. They should have other scientists review stuff.


You're... not wrong. A lot of times it's just a rubber stamp. I've got one paper out there where the reviewer blasted me and then said "but it's engaging and meets the standard for publication." I'm pretty sure he meant "I don't want to review this ass paper again, so let him through."
 
Displayed 6 of 6 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.