You do realize don't you, that you are not in fact Reviewer #3, right? There are only TWO reviewers on this manuscript, thereby absolving you of any obligation to fulfill that detestable role. So, wherefore the vitriol? I mean seriously, I addressed all your points from the first round, and now in this second round you're saying that I failed to demonstrate something that you praised the everliving fuck out of on the first submission. I'm confused. Are you off your meds?
Also, this one thing that you have been stuck on since the first revision - I've done everything you said I should do to placate your concerns on that matter in the resubmission. You still don't like it. I'm beginning to think that you're just being cranky and obtuse. We've talked about this - if you want me to show that something is NOT expressed, you're going to have to be happy with a negative result and a fuckton of controls to show that this result is valid. There is NO WAY I can show you a positive detection of a gene product that isn't there. You do understand how such a request defies the rules of logic, right?
I'm getting a little tired of all this. Please stop fucking with me.
KTHX
Posts
12 comments:
now in this second round you're saying that I failed to demonstrate something that you praised the everliving fuck out of on the first submission
Raising new objections upon the second submission is so not kosher.
Some days, the cognitive dissonance is just astounding...
My PhD adviser told me it was completely unethical for a reviewer to raise new objections in the second round, and the appropriate course of action is to impress this point upon the editors.
urgh. Time to call your editor... and break out the MFJ
hu, you sure you don't have the same Review 2 as I did?
The whole "comment on second round what you actually liked in the first" points to that they either don't know what they wrote (no surprise there) or that they just want to bitch and not let you get through...
I'd write the editor with the "as previously commented by R2 there was no problem. Not sure why this arose now?" or something more eloquently saying that R2 might have lost the marbles???
I feel your agony. And I love reviewer-related posts! I've recently had two manuscripts with this same fuckin issue. On round 2, the uptight reviewer gives a one sentence "review." Simply stating (and I'm paraphrasing here), "I know I said to change this stuff, but after seeing the author change that stuff exactly as I suggested, I'm still kinda grumpy - so nahhh, I'll pass."
W.T.F. This is where I think the assigned editor should step in and take control - using some common fucking sense.
Best of luck.
Sounds like someone is frantically trying to finish up experiments in their own laboratory. I'm sorry you have an oblivious dickwad as a reviewer, hopefully academic karma bites him in the arse.
Not trying to defend your reviewer #2, but I once as a reviewer only caught something seriously off in the manuscript in the second round. It was obviously there all along, but I was distracted by other issues that seemed more urgent and important in the first round. On a more recent review, I also didn't realize that a larger issue hadn't been addressed until I saw the revised manuscript.
I guess it's hard for me to focus on secondary problems when I'm so concerned with diagnosing and evaluating the primary problems.
I feel pretty rotten now; I guess this explains why several journals haven't invited me to review again.
Yeah definately not kosher. My PhD boss analyzes the reviewer comments to see if they are native English speakers. Then he takes a stab at who might have reviewed the article. That weird guy that smells at the conference could have been the guy that reviewed your paper.
You can tell the editor reviewer number 3 probably has not been laid in a while and cannot function correctly upon his duties as a scientist.
Moniker for New PI. Magnum. Like Magnum PI (Magnum being large).
That definitely sucks. Agreed it's not cool to bring up more issues in the second review. Although, as ANON on 2/27 says, in the "rare" instance that there is a big enough issue that is missed by all the reviewers the first time around perhaps it is worthwhile bringing up the second time. At the end of the day it is the integrity of the science that is published that is important...nonetheless, I'd be royally pissed if a reviewer brought up more issues the second time around.
I had one manuscript that was reviewed, we addressed the comments of all the reviewers, sent it back in, then the reviewers decided it wasn't good enough for the journal and rejected it. Why not just reject it outright then and stop wasting everyone's time? The only thing I can think of is that they were in a pissy mood when they read it the second time...c'est la vie
Nice article, thanks for the information.
Post a Comment