Timeline for How to review a revised paper I have already rejected?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 5, 2017 at 2:44 | comment | added | Andrés E. Caicedo | Your rant is completely unwarranted and off-topic, and the suggestion in your answer feels entirely inappropriate and unjustified. | |
| Dec 5, 2017 at 2:27 | comment | added | user20350 | That the ongoing discussion of the laws of nature which has furnished humankind with everything from penicillin to the jet aircraft is terminated by a reviewer's hubris. The author of this question should consider recusing himself. Semmelweis died in an asylum after his findings were rejected by the scientific community of his day, causing countless deaths. Years later were confirmed by Pasteur and Lister. If someone has written a paper, they have a contribution to the scientific discourse, and if they've submitted it to a high-impact journal twice, it ought to be heard, even if "low quality." | |
| Dec 5, 2017 at 2:21 | comment | added | Andrés E. Caicedo | What is there to risk? | |
| Dec 5, 2017 at 2:20 | comment | added | user20350 | Why would you risk it? It's the job of other scientists to find flaws in a theory, that doesn't happen by suppressing work due to concerns about quality. Several incorrect theories of protein structure were publicly-suggested before Pauling suggested the alpha-helix, and a good number of Pauling's letters were to say, "I read your paper, it seems incorrect." Let someone else read it and chew the fat over its quality in the memos. Maybe they'll discover something new!! | |
| Dec 5, 2017 at 2:16 | comment | added | Andrés E. Caicedo | Why would the OP be unable to make an objective conclusion? | |
| Dec 5, 2017 at 2:10 | review | First posts | |||
| Dec 5, 2017 at 7:46 | |||||
| Dec 5, 2017 at 2:07 | history | answered | user20350 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |