Your Manuscript On Peer Review

I’m a big fan of peer review. Most of the revisions that reviewers suggest are very reasonable and sometimes really improve the manuscript. Other times it doesn’t seem to work that way. I’ve noticed this is especially true when the manuscript goes through multiple rounds of peer review at different journals. It can become a franken-paper, unloved by the very reviewers who made it.
car_peer_review_comic_1

9 thoughts on “Your Manuscript On Peer Review

  1. Pingback: “Your Manuscript On Peer Review” | AKempor - Arbeitskreis Empirische Personal- und Organisationsforschung

  2. Pingback: Are reviewers crazy? Or are they saints? | Scientist Sees Squirrel

  3. Pingback: Your Manuscript On Peer Review | Nader Ale Ebrahim

  4. Pingback: Before and after peer-review in a diagram | Progressive Geographies

  5. Sometimes peer-reviewers can go to far and want to many and sometimes also strange and/or not really necessary corrections. But as many of us know, peer-reviewers and editors decide if your paper will be published at the ens or not. This kind of make then “gods”

  6. Pingback: How To Get a Social Media Ph.D. | Social Media Collective

  7. Pingback: Redundant information, cultural evolution, and the perils of academic publishing – Alberto Acerbi

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *