Just received the first request to review a scientific paper.
Now I can almost feel like a 'real' scientist.

Now, the hard question: will I become #Reviewer1 or #Reviewer2
#academicChatter

Reviewer #2 said my 80 ns simulations are too short.

I would also like longer simulations. However, I simulated the whole RNA Polymerase I complex with DNA with about 800k atoms. Which is far larger than usual systems in MD simulations. If I wanted microsecond scale simulations for this system, I would need months of calculation time. Furthermore, the simulations were not the main point of the story, they just supported the experiments...

Fed up with having to reconcile comments from Reviewer 1 and #Reviewer2?

At eLife, editors and reviewers discuss their reviews with each other before reaching a consensus, letting you focus on how to improve. https://elifesciences.org/about/peer-review?utm_source=mastodon&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=submissions_organic&utm_content=consultative_fedup

Academics giving feedback be like

"What you did really well - and I think you should discuss this with your PI - is highlight all the ways in which you still need to improve your writing and thinking."

Be honest: how often do you check journal websites for updates on your submission (multiple choice available if it varies)?

Curious if anyone would like to share thoughts/experience with Qeios and their public peer review approach?

Is this a legitimate initiative? Or something to be wary of?

Dear #reviewer2, we appreciate your suggestion, but further analysis could not be conducted. One co-author has moved two positions since the original draft was written and has no idea where their original data is, while a second co-author has moved to another institute and isn't talking with their former boss, who is holding the data hostage.
#academicchatter

I've backed "Publish or Perish: A Humorous Party Game about Academia" and, trust me, you should too

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/maxhuibai/publish-or-perish-1/

It's been repeated often enough to have become a cliché. But WHY is reviewer #2 more critical of your manuscript than reviewer #1? What could the mechanism be? Comment your own pet theory!

Constructive feedback is vital to academic knowledge production. Adrienne Shaw shares how to write a peer review report without being a jerk—providing the constructive, critically generous feedback authors need. https://ideasonfire.net/how-to-peer-review/

This morning, I decided it was time to read through three sets of reviews (+ the editors') that my co-author and I recently received. All in all, it wasn't nearly as painful as I had feared. The editors concluded that it was major revisions, but I've certainly seen worse! Now off to work! #PositiveThinking #AcWri #AcademicChatter #Reviewer2

Request for help!

Can anyone think of a great reference or quote that speaks to the idea that theoretical models are (by necessity) simplifications?

For context, I am trying to respond to #Reviewer2 complaining that a model presented in a theory paper doesn't include everything...

I know there are some great quotes that speak to this but I am failing to think of any off the top of my head.

Many thanks!

#MentalHealth
#Psychology
#Theory
#Models

You know why published articles have reference lists twice the length your manuscript submissions?

BECAUSE HALF THOSE REFERENCES WERE DEMANDED BY REVIEWERS!

Don't have reference envy! Your lit review will grow. Your reviewers won't let it go through otherwise.

(No, this isn't about Reviewer 1, whose anonymous honour I feel it is important to defend. I'm just still fuming a bit about #Reviewer2

Ok, now on to Reviewer 1's comments. This is the reviewer who, recall REDID MY STATS FOR ME. (It's not quite that simple, but it still embodies the contrast between a picky review that pretends to be helpful, and an actually helpful review.) Even the comments are just *nice*. Like, 'I think your decision to do [x] is not useful, but it's a matter of taste, so I won't make a fuss'

I've basically finished the really hard revisions demanded by #Reviewer2. Now I need to do all the irritating ones, like updating and reformatting all my tables and figures, cleaning up my supplemental materials, fixing typos, renaming all my variables (because Reviewer 2 found them ~*confusing*~). Time consuming, but not hard.

That's good, because I think I'm about to come down with Mr. Absolutive's covid, and I don't want to be doing the hard stuff while sick.

Reviewer 2 here is telling me 'You need to add multiple citations from Author1, Author 2, Author 3, Author 4, Author 5, and Author 6.'

Dude, WHICH ONES? Don't make me read your mind! If you think there's relevant work I missed, TELL ME WHAT IT IS!

Saying the equivalent of, 'Oh, my buddies Joe, Lynn, Sue, Mark, Dave, and Halbert have all worked on stuff related to this. You should cite them' is really, really bad form.