When reviewers can’t relinquish their bone

Had an interesting category of thing happen on peer review of our work recently.

It was the species of reviewer objection where they know they can’t lay a glove on you but they just can’t stop themselves from asserting their disagreement. 

It was in several different contexts and the details differed. But the essence was the same. 

I’m just laughing.

I mean- why do we use language that identifies the weaknesses, limits or necessary caveats in our papers if it doesn’t mean anything?

Saying “…and then there is this other possible interpretation” apparently enrages some reviewers that this possibility is not seen as a reason to prevent us from publishing the data. 

Pointing out that these papers over here support one view of accepted interpretations/practices/understanding can trigger outrage that you don’t ignore those in favor of these other papers over there and their way of doing things. 

Identifying clearly and carefully why you made certain choices generates the most hilariously twisted “objective critiques” that really boil down to “Well I use these other models which are better for some reason I can’t articulate.”

Do you even scholarship, bro?

I mostly chuckle and move on, but these experiences do tie into Mike Eisen’s current fevers about “publishing” manuscripts prior to peer review. So I do have sympathy for his position. It is annoying when such reviewer intransigence over non-universal interpretations is used to prevent publication of data. And it would sometimes be funny to have the “Your caveats aren’t caveatty enough” discussion in public.

Blooding the trainees

In that most English of pastimes, fox hunting, the noobs are smeared about the face with the blood of the poor unfortunate fox after dismembering by hound has been achieved.

I surmise the goal is to get the noob used to the less palatable aspects of their chosen sporting endeavor. 

Anyway, speaking of manuscript review and eventual publication, do you plan a course for new trainees in the lab?

I’m wondering if you have any explicit goals for them- Should a mentor try to get new postdocs or grads a pub, any pub as quickly and easily as possible?

Or should they be thrown into a multi-journal fight so as to fully experience the joys of desk rejection, ultimate denial after four rounds of review somewhere and the final relief of just dumping that Frankensteinian monster of a paper in a lowly journal and being done. 

Do you plan any of this out for your newest trainees?