kinds of peer review I like dealing with
- there’s a typo/mistake in bibliography/nonstandard transliteration here
- is this data cell really correct?
- this paragraph is confusing
- this could be mentioned in the abstract
- about this question, for future research, have you considered this direction?
- here’s an article that may help with this issue
kinds of peer review I don’t like
- why didn’t you cite this personal relation of mine? [their article is about something else]
- my guy’s article explains away the results [article is about something else]
- it’s not clear why you didn’t use the theory I like [text says ‘for problems with this theory cf. X, Y and Z’]
- you should spend less space explaining what’s the point the theory I dislike. [same review later] it’s not clear what’s the point of using the theory I dislike
@melissaboiko sounds like a surprisingly productive peer review
@melissaboiko We are such frail creatures.
This is like the people who ask "questions" during talks but instead just want to talk about their personal group or thing and don't really want any more information from you.
@melissaboiko is there a way to review your reviewers?
@meena no but you can, like, just ignore the nonsense and say ‘the article has been amended in accordance to the points raised by the reviewers’ and I don’t think anybody cares
@melissaboiko oh……i see…
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.