It took me longer to review your paper than it did for you to write it.

Submit Reject Submit Reject Submit Reject Submit Reject Submit Reject Submit Reject Submit Revise Resubmit Resubmit Major Revisions Revised Minor Revisions Revised because Typos Accepted

Consider this as more of an intervention than a rejection.

Of course you should submit to our journal. We will afford your manuscript all the attention it deserves by hiding it behind a paywall so high and wide that no one -- including you -- will be able to read it.

I always read the manuscript. Except when I don't.

I'm rejecting your paper because you're wearing a bow tie on your faculty webpage.

If I see you in my follower list I'll be less inclined to reject your paper. That's just how objective a grumpy reviewer I am.

What is this "constructive criticism" of which you speak?

Journal Editor, then: "#978 out of 1034?! Journal ranking metrics are so subjective and biased! I hate them!"

Journal Editor, now: "I love me them rankings! We're up to #328 out of 1034!"

Scholar Social

Scholar Social is a microblogging platform for researchers, grad students, librarians, archivists, undergrads, academically inclined high schoolers, educators of all levels, journal editors, research assistants, professors, administrators—anyone involved in academia who is willing to engage with others respectfully. Read more ...