- one minute read - 25 words

Dealing with yet another case of “these reviewer suggestions are good and pretty straightforward, so why don’t I have any motivation to make the revisions?”

similar posts:

Reread some feedback from a journal editor after a couple of days, and while I still disagree with it, it’s at least more reasonable than I remembered it being.

🔗 linkblog: Use of AI Is Seeping Into Academic Journals—and It’s Proving Difficult to Detect | WIRED'

It annoys me when a journal asks a reviewer to address specific prompts; it annoys me more when I only realize this after writing my review.

I got my job largely because I can work with Twitter data, and my tenure application is built on the premise that I do good Twitter research. I probably shouldn’t take as much pleasure as I do from watching the platform fall apart right now, but I was ready to move on anyway.

In a training last week, we discussed the trend of journals’ checking manuscripts with plagiarism software. People shared examples where editors couldn’t accept perfectly good reasons for authors to reuse material unless a certain software score was also reached.

comments:

You can click on the < button in the top-right of your browser window to read and write comments on this post with Hypothesis.