The guys down at Dr. Jekyll & Mrs. Hyde have recently published a post entitled "Dr Jekyll's Guide for Reviewers".
It's a funny (ok, to me) satire of the practices of some annoying little reviewers...
After reading it, I would like to add two suggestions to the list, if I may.... (please check "Dr Jekyll's Guide for Reviewers" first, or this will make absolutely no sense):
11. Please do not hesitate to demand that the authors cite some of your previous work, despite it being only marginally related to the work being submitted.
12. You are encouraged to ask the authors to reduce their manuscript by 50%. And no.. you don't have to give any directions as to what to edit.
It's a funny (ok, to me) satire of the practices of some annoying little reviewers...
After reading it, I would like to add two suggestions to the list, if I may.... (please check "Dr Jekyll's Guide for Reviewers" first, or this will make absolutely no sense):
11. Please do not hesitate to demand that the authors cite some of your previous work, despite it being only marginally related to the work being submitted.
12. You are encouraged to ask the authors to reduce their manuscript by 50%. And no.. you don't have to give any directions as to what to edit.
UPDATE (29/4): DrDoyenne has just left the following cartoon at the post:
2 Comments:
Good joke. The only problem is... sometimes is true.
Even worse is when the reviewer reject your paper and then publish something really close to your "in press" work!
Nice pic :)
Post a Comment