Academic Journal
Source: Summarized from the Science Network Jin Xiaowei blog, Xie Spiral Public Number, Zhihu, etc., most of the English material comes from the magazine Environmental Microbiology
Edit: Student
Reviewers or something, it's so annoying! Their communication with you is either warm and sincere or serious, but their communication with journal editors is much more casual. Do you know what bad things the reviewers are saying about you behind your back? Look at --
Chinese-English version
1.The writing and data presentation are so bad that I had to leave work and go home early and then spend time to wonder what life is about. I would suggest that we set up a fund that pays for the red wine reviewers may need to digest manuscripts like this one. Please reject it completely and then block the author’s email ID so they can’t use the online system in future.
The level of writing and the data presented was too fluid (sha) and bad (bi), and the brother had to leave work early, hurry home, and then take the time to think about life. Brother suggested that we still set up a fund to pay for the red wine that the reviewer might need when reviewing. Do not publish, and it is recommended to lock the author's email ID to prevent the person from continuing to contribute in the future.
2.The writing and data presentation are so bad that I had to leave work and go home early and then spend time to wonder what life is about.
The level of writing and the data presented were invincible, and I had to leave work early, rush home, and then take the time to doubt whether life was for shrimp rice.
3.Reject – More holes than my grandad’s string vest!
Reject, must! There are more holes in this article than in my grandpa's vest!
4.The biggest problem with this manuscript, which has nearly sucked the will to live out of me, is the terrible writing style.
This article has many problems, the writing format is particularly terrible, and I don't want to live.
5.The journal editor stated that our manuscript was rejected. We were shocked that the reviewer’s comments read “fuck you” (handwritten on a torn strip of paper scotch-taped to the editor’s letter to us)
The journal editor killed our article because the reviewer's opinion was "beep ~~~" (a note was written on the letter replying to the editor)
6.Hopeless – Seems like they have been asleep and are not up on recent work on metagenomics.
This article is desperate. Apparently the authors either fell asleep or didn't keep up with the frontiers of metagenomics at all.
7.A weak paper, poor experimental design, comparison of sequences using different primers, no statistical analysis possible, carelessly written, poorly thought through.
The article is weak. The experimental design is very filed, using different primer sequences for comparison; statistical analysis is non-committal; the writing is rough. What a tragedy.
8. I agreed to review this Ms whilst answering e-mails in the golden glow of a balmy evening on the terrace of our holiday hotel on Lake Como. Back in the harsh light of reality in Belfast I realize that it’s just on the limit of my comfort zone and that it would probably have been better not to have volunteered.
Enchanting evenings, golden sunsets, if I were on the afterglow terrace of the Holiday Inn on Lake Como at this time, I would readily agree to review this article. However, in the cruel daylight of Belfast, I think just now I thought it was cool to be cool by the hotel, the article, or forget it...
9.The presentation is of a standard that I would reject from an undergraduate student.
I haven't read this kind of article since I was an undergraduate.
10.The lack of negative controls. . . . results in the authors being lost in the funhouse. Unfortunately, I do not think they even realize this.
The lack of negative control experiments led to the authors getting completely lost in the playground, and unfortunately I don't think they realize it yet.
11.I am generally very happy to provide extensive suggestions and comments on manuscripts, but this submission was an absolute waste of my time.
I usually like to give advice to others to review the manuscript, but this article is definitely a waste of my rope.
12.I found the paper a challenge to evaluate, expecting some profound methodological or theoretical insight. Yet none appeared to be forthcoming.
I think this article is trying to challenge the discovery of some lofty methods and theories, and the eggs.
13.The introduction, general approach and data analyses are somewhat anachronistic–this study would have been really interesting 10-15 years ago, but now it seems quite out of date.
It would have been an interesting study a dozen years ago, but now...
14.The biggest problem with this manuscript, which has nearly sucked the will to live out of me, is the terrible writing style.
There are too many problems in this article, especially this writing style, which simply destroys the will to survive in brother's body.
15.Hopeless - Seems like they have been asleep and are not up on recent work on metagenomics.
Simply hopeless of them.... It appears that the authors either fell asleep or did not keep up with the frontiers of metagenomics at all.
16. "Done! Difficult task, I don’t wish to think about constipation and faecal flora during my holidays! But, once a referee, always and anywhere a referee; we are good boy scouts in the research wilderness. Even under the sun and near a wonderful beach."
That's it! It's not easy. I don't want to go on vacation with constipation and fecal colonies. However, once you have been a reviewer, you will always be a reviewer, and you will be a reviewer everywhere. In the desert of scientific research, we are brave Scouts. Even on the sandy beach full of sun. hum!
17. "This paper is awfully written. There is no adequate objective and no reasonable conclusion. The literature is quoted at random and not in the context of argument. I have doubts about the methods and whether the effort of data gathering is sufficient to arrive at a useful conclusion."
This paper is so badly written. The purpose is unclear and the conclusion is unreasonable. The citations are all randomly quoted and do not match the arguments in the main text at all. I doubt such experimental methods, and I suspect that the data they collected are not enough to draw valid conclusions.
18. "Season’s Greetings! I apologise for my slow response but a roast goose prevented me from answering emails for a few days."
Happy holidays! The reply was slow, I'm sorry. A roast goose got in my way and left me with days of not being able to get my emails back.
Chinese gossip version
1. The most bizarre reason I encountered is to vote for a journal, the deputy editor looked for a reviewer to review for too long, more than three months out of the reviewer opinions are small repairs (change a few typos that kind of small repairs), after the revision of the day, first the deputy editor gave the accesspt, and then the editor-in-chief finally sent a letter saying that he rejected the manuscript, the reason is: the review time is too long, slowing down the average review data of the magazine, so the editor-in-chief decided to withdraw.
--by Internet
2. Your work is very good, the data is very rigorous and telling, we should have published it to you. However, our magazine used to ask the teachers of your school to review the manuscripts for us and write us opinions, and your teachers did not do it, so we should not publish your papers! This is the real story that happened to my brother who is a friend of mine.
--by Zhihu Academic Status Emperor.
3. A Turkish colleague of mine once submitted an article to PRD when two reviewers reviewed his manuscript. In the end, one of them said that the Introduction part was too short, and the other said that the Introduction was too long... God knows how the Turkish dude finally persuaded the two reviewers at the same time.
——by Zhihu Lin Chunshan
4. The submission story of the wet brother next door is still in my eyes, I think the wet brother is a person with strong scientific research ability, but no matter how strong it is, it can't withstand the review experts:
Wet brother invested in a journal with an impact factor of more than 4 points, more than 4 points in the field of chemistry is not too tall journal, and the direction of the wet brother is very appropriate, the result of waiting for more than three months, and finally replied to the review comments:
Reviewer 1:
The basic meaning is: idea is very good, but I seriously doubt your experimental method, because I asked my beloved to repeat it for more than two months without repeating it.
The wet brother is angry at the sight, paralyzed, and your beloved disciple can't do it and suspects the experiment of labor? How not to doubt the hand of your beloved disciple?
—— by Zhihu winni dong
5. In a sub-journal of Nature, the reviewer sprayed a bunch, and the last sentence said: Anyway, this article is needed anyway, I will give it to you. Because the big boss who signed in the last place is more fierce.
——by Zhihu Anonymous user
6. Tell me about a high school classmate. Because the majors are different, I can't remember the journal. Replace it with A and B, whose impact factor is higher than B. The impact factor of B is a bit low (it seems that A is about 6 points and B is about 3 points). Students feel that their articles are almost Enough for A, but definitely higher than the grade of B. In addition, A and B magazines are related.
Classmate Ph.D. first thesis, want to vote for a good magazine A. Then not long after, the feedback from A magazine came: the general idea is that it can be written, but we think it is almost there, you try another magazine? I happen to have magazine B here, you can look at it. Then a link was given.
In general, even if you don't vote for B, you will click on the link to see it. So my classmate ordered.
Then, the page where the B magazine's submission was successful was displayed...
Direct post end....
My classmate: My ass...
--by know the user Mines