JSR reviewers are known for their thorough
comments, yet at times, they are less penetrating and more…ummm…succinct. Some recent examples include:
“I am beginning to get the
feeling that it would be easier to write the Abstract, Introduction, and
Conclusions for the authors than continue the back and forth.”
“Where to start.... To be
blunt, this is one of the weakest manuscripts that I've reviewed, perhaps ever.”
“Figure 3 is generally
impenetrable to my poor grey cells.”
“Without some other
rationale, autocyclicity would be an equally plausible explanation (maybe tidal
channel avulsion/abandonment, or a series of large storms). If you’re not careful, you might bring Bruce
Wilkinson out of retirement with this one…”
“I am totally defeated by the
JSR web page! I cannot figure out how to download or upload anything. I don't
know who designed this web page but they ought to be flogged!”
In a confidential note to the editor: “My only question is whether it is really a JSR paper? That's why I
submitted my rather dull [removed, for anonymity] paper to Sed. Geol. Anyway,
that's for you to decide!”
“…the author may be guilty of
overgeneralizing what is already , well... over generalized.”
“Naturally, I remain at your
disposal for any inquiries or additional explanations about my review
(specially for my english !!).”
No comments:
Post a Comment