Ju Sun (孙举)

Dedicated to my research and life


| Comments

2010年Environmental Microbiology杂志刊登了一部分杂志的审稿意见,让人在学术研究严肃、认真的前提下充分体会了下,审稿人的幽默与诙谐,有的审稿意见甚至让人啼笑皆非,下面列举了一部分经典的审稿意见,让大家也见识一下史上最狠的评审意见,其他的内容见文后附件,有兴趣的可以继续寻找。


This paper is desperate. Please reject it completely and then block the author’s email ID so they can’t use the online system in future.


The writing and data presentation are so bad that I had to leave work and go home early and then spend time to wonder what life is about.


Reject – More holes than my grandad’s string vest!


I would suggest that EM set up a fund that pays for the red wine reviewers may need to digest manuscripts like this one.

哥建议贵刊(环境微生物学杂志)成立基金,以买单审稿人审阅时可能需要的红酒,哥上火呀。( Great! – Ju Sun)

The biggest problem with this manuscript, which has nearly sucked the will to live out of me, is the terrible writing style.


Hopeless – Seems like they have been asleep and are not up on recent work on metagenomics.


A weak paper, poor experimental design, comparison of sequences using different primers, no statistical analysis possible, carelessly written, poorly thought through.


I agreed to review this Ms whilst answering e-mails in the golden glow of a balmy evening on the terrace of our holiday hotel on Lake Como. Back in the harsh light of reality in Belfast I realize that it’s just on the limit of my comfort zone and that it would probably have been better not to have volunteered.


The presentation is of a standard that I would reject from an undergraduate student.


The lack of negative controls… . results in the authors being lost in the funhouse. Unfortunately, I do not think they even realize this.



The truth about scientific peer review