... got a review back a day or two ago on a manuscript from a journal we were submitting to. I won't mention the name of the journal, other than the initials were Plant and Soil, and the reviews were horrible. Reviewer 2 was a particularly pleasant person who left us the following gem of a comment: "No!!!"
Really?
Oh, and buttmonkey, the reason we didn't use effluent was because when you use effluent you add a multitude of confounding factors. We were looking at the effect of a single variable, that element being the whole impetus of the study. Idiot.
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
is this the same review you blogged about the other day, or another stupid #2?
Different paper. Though the studies were pretty similar, so it may have been the same reviewer for all I know. However they didn't complain about the use of "microbial" this time around, so probably not!
Boo! I had one like that this summer too. 'tis suckful.
Hi there EcoGeoFemme, thanks for stopping by. I hope the "summer of the bad reviewer" doesn't turn into the "fall of the bad reviewer". I have one manuscript out, and a couple others on the way!
Well, you're off to a good start by having so many to submit. Odds are some fraction will get accepted. I'm starting to feel really bad that I haven't done a better job getting my phd papers submitted sooner. Sigh...
Post a Comment