This is hilarious.

In addition, from an editorial perspective, copyright helps to prevent elements such as plagiarism, multiple submission and fraud in journal articles, and whilst is does not actually detect these elements, it acts as a protective measure to uphold the quality of journals.

What the hell did this say? They can’t detect shenanigans (score another to post-pub processes) but they…huh? What? Reluctantly post retractions? Send out a cease and desist letter from the same bunker that hit @FakeElsevier?

Some commenter at Rock Talk complained about a recent grant review:

I just received the most terrible of reviews, where the reviewer was not only biased but highly inflammatory, prejudicial and aggressive. I must say I was totally taken aback. When you say things like “…terribly convoluted approach”,…”PI has clearly no clue…” how something works, trashes my published work by saying these pubs “are a gross exaggeration”….the list goes on and on. Even as a relatively senior investigator, I was very shocked by the mean-spirited nature of the comments. I cannot imagine how it would destroy a new investigator.

I am having trouble seeing it. I mean sure “no clue” is directed at the applicant rather than the application, but it’s pretty tame stuff. If a reviewer thinks your papers exaggerate? Presumably in wild speculative interpretation that runs beyond your data? Seems okay and even obligatory to express this. The “terribly convoluted approach” comment is a pretty inoffensive way to get to the heart of this common failing of grants as well…I’m not seeing how you could put it more “nicely”.