Currently playing on iTunes: Hells Bells by AC/DC.
So just got back a review on a manuscript I'm a 2nd author on. It's a collaboration I struck up with the help of a senior researcher at the institution I work at. He was friends with a couple of guys, and they needed some microbial work done. Since I'm the lone microbiologist here, the match was made fairly easily. Bonus, they've become good drinking buddies (and at this point owe me lots and lots of free beer).
At any rate, we put together a manuscript on a problem that my collaborators face in their neck of the woods. It involves agent X, used to deal with issue A. When exhausted, it is disposed of in manner NG (which stands for "not good"), which creates issue B, and effects crop 1 and 2. Got all that?
It's some fairly straightforward work, and I was asked to look at the impacts on microbial diversity. They shipped me samples, I did my work, I wrote it up and sent it off to them. They worked it into the overall manuscript, we beat and banged on it a bit and then sent it off. Well we got the reviews back last week.
Reviewer 1: Loved it. Had nothing but praise for it. Comments were all of a paragraph in length. Either they did a last minute review and couldn't be bothered with it or not, I have no idea. I love Reviewer 1 regardless.
Reviewer 2: Someone pee'd in their Wheaties before they did this review. They picked every nit that could be picked. Heck, they even took issue with my use of the word "microbial". I mean really, dude? All told, their review was three single space pages long. We've all decided that we don't like Reviewer 2, but would love to take Reviewer 1 out for a beer.
So now ... off to address the comments of Reviewer 2. Hopefully we address them to the satisfaction of the Associate Editor so this puppy doesn't have to go out for a re-review.