Timeline for I reviewed a paper that was rejected, and the authors have posted the paper online without corrections. Do I intervene?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
3 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 5 at 3:44 | comment | added | jomimc | That said, I do have more interesting things to work on... | |
| Feb 5 at 3:43 | comment | added | jomimc | I agree that the authors do not have to agree with me, and I am probably wrong on at least some points, however the other reviewer raised similar concerns and the paper was rejected. I can't imagine a competent reviewer failing to raise similar points (e.g. not reporting effect size). I genuinely think the work has such severe flaws that it should not be published anywhere in its current form. | |
| Jan 30 at 11:01 | history | answered | CrimsonDark | CC BY-SA 4.0 |