Currently, I am experience the specific academic joy of receiving a peer review invitation that feels like recognition of a specific research reputation I have been trying to cultivate for a few years.
similar posts:
🔗 linkblog: AI-generated research papers are overwhelming peer review
I love a genuinely good experience as a peer reviewer. The current manuscript I’m reviewing is one that I’m very well suited to review (which does not happen enough), and the authors have clearly improved the paper since the last round. It’s nice when things work like they’re supposed to.
Months ago, I submitted a paper to a CFP outside my area—and immediately wrote my co-author a list of what I thought probably still needed fixing. Reviews came back today with both reviewers recommending “ready for publication.” Academic writing is unpredictable, but I’ll take it in this case.
🔗 linkblog: Is Including Hidden AI Prompts In Academic Papers Gaming The Peer Review System — Or Keeping It Honest?
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?”
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.