Subscribe: Comments for Fourth Floor Studio
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
authors  comment giving  comment  flashplayer ubuntu  open reject  paper  reject  rejected  rejection  review  reviewers  time  work 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments for Fourth Floor Studio

Comments for Fourth Floor Studio

scribble, scribble, scribble. Or something.

Last Build Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2016 08:40:44 +0000


Comment on The great and the gaffe by markssherman42131

Sat, 09 Apr 2016 08:40:44 +0000

Nun gut, das ist wahr. Es gibt aber eben sehr viele, die der Meinung dieser Partei sind. Click

Comment on Australian undergraduate teaching by Counter Strike Warhammer 4 1 Patch Notes .

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 10:55:08 +0000

If this student has not been taking AP courses in high school then they are already at somewhat of a disadvantage.

Comment on The great and the gaffe by essiexk

Sat, 26 Feb 2011 14:03:41 +0000

[...]discovered, and I advise you to read it[...]

Comment on Doocing by Academic Career Links

Wed, 01 Apr 2009 13:04:10 +0000

Some people have also lost their job offers because of blogging and twitting...

Comment on Bio::Blogs #5 – tools edition by name

Mon, 01 Sep 2008 06:15:36 +0000


Comment on Bio::Blogs #5 – tools edition by name

Mon, 01 Sep 2008 06:15:03 +0000


Comment on Adobe Flashplayer 9 for ubuntu dapper by flashplayer for ubuntu

Fri, 01 Aug 2008 12:54:51 +0000

[...] @ 1:50 am ... The absolute simplest way: download the script half-way down the page, run as root. fix for Ubuntu Linux (Gutsy 7.10)For anyone having trouble getting flash to work with [...]

Comment on Giving up? by chris

Sun, 11 Nov 2007 21:04:18 +0000

Matt - thanks for chiming in. First off, I agree that if a paper is rejected (even just once) that suggests more work of some form needs to be done. I have also found reviews to be mostly helpful and constructive - although the subset of nasty/peremtory/off-topic ones always sit badly. I also agree that publishing shouldn't be a game. However, playing becomes more advantageous as the stakes rise (an ESS, if you like), until you can't afford *not* to play (if say, your promotion is on the line). I've also found that sometimes one is held hostage to reviewer whimsy (such as stylistic disagreements), particularly at the more competitive journals where every submission is at best a crap-shoot. There are so many other papers vying to get in that even minor frowns from reviewers jeopardise what little chance you have of getting accepted. In this context, it's almost impossible not to play games to improve your odds. On the other hand, as an ever more frequent reviewer, I find myself classifying submissions into two piles*: "no way", and "should be perfect". I generally write shorter reviews for the former than the latter, for which I argue points to maximise clarity and content. My point being that I have never, ever accepted a paper as is. Out of 30+ reviews. Adding the 15-20 submissions I've made as an author, and the only time I've encountered a perfect acceptance was for an invited review for a special issue (which arguably doesn't count). Which brings me to the nature of the game: given that a reviewer is likely to ask for at least some modifications, and that different reviewers will probably want different things, it is most efficient to submit the least polished paper acceptable and get the chosen reviewers to tell you how they want it customised this time around. It's risky, because you could just get an outright rejection, but if you think the material is journal-appropriate it's a tempting strategy. It's also time-efficient if your field is brisk, and potentially gets you that coveted early submission date. * There's also the third pile: the interim submission, a manuscript obviously in draft form, lacking some data, where the authors are trying to gauge referee response and/or garner ideas more than anything else. These are the shortest reviews, generally along the lines of "finish the damned thing before submitting!".

Comment on Giving up? by Matt Hodgkinson

Sat, 03 Nov 2007 00:47:47 +0000

"As referees seem compelled to ask for at least some changes, there is a school of thought that says you should either build in some fixable flaws into your manuscripts, or leave out the last confirmatory experiments they are likely to ask for (which you can execute while the paper is in review). You can then write a response agreeing “in principle” with each comment, fixing the ones you intended to and ignoring the rest. That way you appear to give in completely whilst writing the paper as you had originally intended". Sigh. Reporting science research isn't and shouldn't be a game. Submitting a paper with flaws or with supporting work left out just increases the chances that your work will be rejected. If you add in extra work after the initial review, that greatly increases the likelihood that the work will be sent for re-review, taking up more of the reviewers' time and delaying publication. Should these flaws not be noticed by the reviewers, would you remember to fix them? If you don't get picked up on the need for the confirmatory work, does that then allow you salami slice, leaving them to a subsequent paper? STANDARD DISCLAIMER - these my thoughts, not those of BioMed Central.

Comment on Giving up? by Matt Hodgkinson

Sat, 03 Nov 2007 00:32:31 +0000

Can I give an editor's point of view? There are two types of rejection, closed reject and open reject. 1. Closed reject. This means that we're not interested. Nothing the authors can do will persuade us to publish this, short of a formal appeal. It is either too flawed, or too small an advance. 2. Open reject. The paper has too many problems at the moment, and we'd be stringing the authors along if we did invite revisions. We ask authors to make their revisions within three weeks, and at most three months - if the revisions are likely to take longer than that, we'd prefer to close the file for now. Sometimes an open reject is best as it is a sign to the author that we really do want them to fix the problems before we want to see it again - asking for revisions can result in an author trying their luck and making only cosmetic changes, which just wastes their time and that of the editors and reviewers when it later gets rejected outright. Rejection frees up the reviewers from the expectation that they will re-review - we may well invite them to review if the work is resubmitted, but they can much more easily decline if busy or not inclined to look again. If an article is repeatedly rejected from several journals, then there's something wrong. Either you're coming up against the same biased reviewers by sheer bad luck (or in a small field) or else there is something about the paper that doesn't sit right with the field. To avoid repeated rejections, then you need to take the reviewers' criticisms seriously, even if you're not going to submit again to that same journal. Reviewers and editors rarely reject arbitrarily, and they always give reasons. Even if you don't agree with the comments, acknowledging and countering criticism within the text of the manuscript is probably a good idea. We don't want to have to reject papers! We want to publish as much sound science as possible. To be devil's advocate, think who is to blame for a rejection - is it the peer reviewers and editors, or is it the authors who failed to meet the standards for publication? (I work on the BMC-series with BioMed Central, but - STANDARD DISCLAIMER - these are my own thoughts, not those of the journals)