As a way to get my own blog restarted, I thought I would post this great piece on peer reviewers from Scientist Sees Squirrel
Originally posted on Scientist Sees Squirrel:
Image: © Jason McDermott, with permission
Are reviewers crazy? Or are they saints? Both, of course, and neither; but I’ll try to do better than that.
I’m writing this post because last week, the peer-review comic (above) was wildly popular on Twitter – it must have come up in my feed several dozen times. Which is reasonable enough, because it’s pretty funny, and we all feel this way about peer review from time to time. Those reviewers are crazy, eh? And sometimes they are. Sometimes they’re really crazy (for instance when they suggest a paper needs some male coauthors and bring the internet down in flames around PLoS One’s writhingly apologetic leadership)*.
But, here’s the funny thing. Everybody furiously retweeting that comic missed the first two sentences of the blog post it originally decorated:
“I’m a big fan of peer review. Most of the revisions that reviewers suggest…
View original 680 more words