Every review these days

I have now reviewed “A fantastic manuscript that contains A LOT of new data and is in pretty decent shape for a first submission” by Author et al. and have read it with great interest.

The design is novel and the concept is interesting. However, I do have some major comments, followed by some specific ones.

1. The design is too complex. The story should be streamlined (streamlined is the buzzword of 2021). Below I provide irrelevant specific comments that do not give you any particular idea how to do so

2. The statistics are complex and all wrong. I have no particular suggestion on how to do it right. But just be better.

3. Valuable data are missing. It seems that you did not collect valuable background information on the airflow over the third fully expanded leaf, or anything else that is not related to your hypotheses. More irrelevant background data could have given a better understanding of the system.

4. There are too many hypotheses. The story is too complex.

5. But what’s your hypothesis for all these measurements?

6. Give me your fucking kidney! (I already have your left lung – I was also reviewer 2 in your previous paper.

Specific comments:

L25: Blabla, broad context. For instance cite this irrelevant paper by my colleagues.

L35: Another paper is relevant, because it shows nothing that is particularly related to your study system.

L55: Although you didn’t measure or hypothesize anything about them, mention that earwigs are important too.

L55: What about all other insects?

L56: And nematodes. Nematodes too.

L80: Nice design. You should have collected more data.

L100-120: I have no clue about statistics, but this looks too complex.

L200: I cannot read the axis titles.

L205: This is a small effect.

L206: This is a small effect.

L215: This is a small effect.

L218: This is where I would present the data that you did not collect.

L250: The discussion is speculative and not to the point.

L260: There was this marginally significant think that had hardly any effect. I think it is pretty important. Could you elaborate on this?

L270: Could you speculate why this finding is what it is?

L280: Here, the irrelevant measurement that does not yet exist would really (not) make your study any more relevant.

L290: There are 30.589 caveats that need to be mentioned. Not measuring useless things is an important one, but probably a caveat paragraph would be a great addition and would strengthen the manuscript.

L300: I like the ending, but it would be good to highlight that more research is needed.

Signed – Anonymous.

Published by Robin Heinen

Father of one but almost two | Husband | Entomologist and Ecologist | Postdoctoral Researcher @ TUM | Traveler | Coffee Addict

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: