ShitMyReviewersSay
@YourPaperSucks
Followers
67,507
Following
1,107
Media
377
Statuses
1,628
Collecting the finest real specimens of reviewer comments since 1456. Submit now! http://t.co/guS0m8QxC8
Joined October 2014
Don't wanna be here?
Send us removal request.
Explore trending content on Musk Viewer
Toyin Abraham
• 69001 Tweets
孤独のグルメ
• 55332 Tweets
野球の時間
• 45260 Tweets
納豆の日
• 45177 Tweets
監督脚本
• 42517 Tweets
監督・脚本・主演
• 38824 Tweets
Nkrumah
• 27566 Tweets
ジェイド
• 26019 Tweets
PRABOWOkerja CERDASterukur
• 22451 Tweets
KitaKOMPAK KitaTANGGUH
• 21677 Tweets
サマソニ
• 20576 Tweets
舞元さん
• 17292 Tweets
#MRGWIN
• 13060 Tweets
#VirtuouS_Dreamcatcher
• 12006 Tweets
Pinned Tweet
“I am afraid this manuscript may contribute not so much towards the field’s advancement as much as toward its eventual demise.”
93
824
3K
'You will see that Reviewer 2 has slightly missed the point, so please don’t pay too much attention to their comments in your revision." -Editor
20
288
2K
'You will see that Reviewer 2 has slightly missed the point, so please don’t pay too much attention to their comments in your revision." - Editor
5
108
739
We are all Jo Sharp
I had a paper rejected once because I “didn’t seem to know the work of Jo Sharp well enough” - I am Jo Sharp!!!
#ShareYourRejections
394
5K
32K
5
71
551
'This paper is desperate. Please reject it completely and then block the author's email ID so they can't use the online system in the future.'
13
97
528
'The manuscript makes 3 claims: The 1st we've known for years, the 2nd for decades, the 3rd for centuries."
1
109
377
"Statistical analysis. It is a bit strange for me that authors have used Python for statistical analysis instead of using SPSS or MATLAB as usual in the field. Please, explain."
11
53
355
“The Gettysburg Address was only 272 words, and was one of the most powerful speeches in history. This paper, on the other hand, is over 8,000 words and says absolutely nothing at all.”
2
50
341
'The author should abandon the premise that his work can be considered research'
9
40
338
“Why don’t you just send copies of this to the two people in the world who care about it, and forget the publication route?”
2
64
323
"The arguments in the paper are compelling but not convincing"
3
39
304
'If the editor somehow accepts this paper, they risk permanent destroying the credibility of this journal and its editorial board'
8
34
279
“If the author is comfortable having his/her name on this paper, then I won't stand in the way of its publication”
1
72
268
“The paper could be considered for acceptance given a rewrite of the paper and change in the title and abstract.”
3
62
267
'This paper is desperate. Please reject it completely and then block the author's email ID so they can't use the online system in the future.'
3
44
263
'The scientific contribution of this paper - if there is any at all - is at best hopelessly insignificant.'
4
28
266
'Unfortunately, I cannot recommend this paper for publication because its contents violate the laws of physics'
1
92
245
'I can't possibly imagine what led the authors to believe that their paper was remotely interesting enough to submit for publication'
2
36
241
“This paper is absolutely ridiculous. It shouldn't be published anywhere and the author should not be encouraged to revise"
10
35
238
“I would suggest activating the spellchecker on Word, or keeping the cat from walking on your keyboard”
0
45
236
“The paper descends into nonsense, never to return, on line 44.”
2
85
236
A glitch in the matrix
4
11
237
“I am, frankly, underwhelmed by the revisions. Most of the responses sound smooth, but really just written to avoid serious additional work"
5
28
228
'This is an interesting manuscript, not because of its results, but because of its complete ignorance of due scientific process'
0
45
229
'I have 3 main objections to this paper: it is self-contradictory, it's functionally obsolete, and it's been submitted to the wrong journal'
2
76
225
“The author does not exhibit adequate acquaintance with the subject, the scholarship on it, the structure of logical argument, or English."
4
37
216
Do you need some non-COVID-19 distraction? How about a SCIENTIFIC PAPER ABOUT SHIT MY REVIEWERS SAY?
4
48
206
“Table 4 seems unnecessary given figure 8. Indeed, figure 8 also seems unnecessary”
-R2 has been watching Tidying Up.
1
40
205
I'm afraid our journal will not be able to publish your work. We contacted 16 reviewers of which 12 declined (the others failed to respond).
4
43
197
‘Ultimately, the results are just a set of observations.’
0
48
196
'If the author is comfortable with having his/her name on THIS, then I won’t stand in the way of publication.'
1
18
200
"The authors last name sounds Spanish. I didn't read the manuscript because I'm sure it's full of bad English'
14
36
196
"Did you have a seizure while writing this sentence? Because I feel like I had one while reading it."
0
19
196
'Publication of this paper will not advance our knowledge in any shape of form, it will just result in other researchers pointing out how bad this study actually is'
3
28
192
"I would suggest either activating the spell-checker on Word or finding a way to keep your cat from walking on the keyboard."
2
23
191
‘I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why this paper was written.’
2
21
184
"I urge the authors to not publish this article anywhere, as it will impede the progress of scientific understanding."
3
22
178
"This paper is fluently written and meticulously researched. I do not recommend it for publication."
6
43
179
"I have read this MS twice, which given the grammatical howlers in the Abstract would appear to be more times than it has been read by the authors"
0
25
176
"Can you explain this part a bit further, but without going into detail"
1
73
173
“I am not sure why there is a full section about limitations, this in itself says a lot about the study”
3
44
177
'The author should abandon the premise that his work can be considered research.'
3
18
174
'I believe that the authors have done scientific work, but in the current form of the paper it is impossible to judge it.'
1
14
162
“I have read this paper several times through, and I have nothing to say in its defense.”
0
17
167
"I am personally offended that the authors believed that this study had a reasonable chance of being accepted to a serious scientific journal."
0
23
160
'I find the title and the main premise of the abstract confusing and illogical. [key concept X] has the logic of a Monty Python sketch'
1
20
164
When you scroll down the editorial decision to the reviewer comments
2
23
160
The authors report results from pages 16-26. This section reflects what I would brutally call 'death by figures'
0
11
158
'The reported mean of 7.7 is misleading because it appears that close to half of your participants are scoring below that mean'
10
110
155
"The reported mean of 7.7 is misleading because it appears that close to half of your participants are scoring below that mean"
4
15
156
'That’s not possible to do without mind-reading, and there’s nothing in the Method section about mind-reading methods'
3
35
156
"I fail to see the contribution either to physics or social science"
2
35
156
'If the results are correct they cannot be new, if they are new they cannot possibly be correct. It is hard to say which is the case'
0
36
155
“The authors conclusions not only contradict their own data but also the laws of thermodynamics”
0
44
153
"I apologize for this but frankly some parts read like a report of a high-school student on a scientific experiment."
2
20
151
"I’ve never read anything like it & I do not mean it as a compliment"
1
18
146
“The presentation is of a standard that I would reject from an undergraduate student”
1
24
147
"The language is so inaccessible that I can't make up my mind whether they're trying to hide something or actually think this is good writing"
0
21
147
'Your abstract wouldn’t have made me want to read it had I not been a reviewer.'
0
28
142
“Line 306. The sentence follows a bit of a Yoda-esque grammar”
4
22
143
“The manuscript is too long for what the authors have to say. However, additional text is required as outlined below."
3
59
144
'The authors have not bothered to learn the first thing about the theories they are hoping to refute with ill-designed experiments and muddled rationale.'
0
13
143
"Large parts of the manuscript read now more like a Master thesis than a scientific paper. I hope that the more experienced co-authors - if there are any - can help with this aspect of style."
#ifthereareany
8
8
144
This paper is desperate. Please reject it completely and then block the author’s email ID so they can’t use the online system in the future.
2
48
144
"There are so many things wrong with this manuscript that I do not know where to begin"
6
14
141
''The only redeeming aspect of this manuscript is that it is so poorly written that it fails to convey the incorrect conclusions drawn here' [from the most recent episode of
@quantitudepod
on the review process]
9
12
139
When Reviewer 2 demands you remove a key section of the paper and you just want to get it accepted
1
14
140
'Someone has been foraging in theory and has managed to learn how to mangle simple concepts and hide them behind pretentious empty prose'
0
46
137
"Indeed, by the end of the paper, the reader is left with a feeling of ‘so what now?"
1
10
133
'This article is on an interesting topic. Unfortunately there is no more positive to say about this manuscript.'
0
25
135
Unless the authors performed some pagan ritual before euthanizing the animals I would use ‘killed’ (or ‘euthanized’) instead of ‘sacrificed'
1
74
129
"If participants were recruited from a university, I imagine they would usually be 18-22 years old. Why does your sample range from 18 to 63? I’m a bit lost here."
8
8
132
'I am concerned as it appears that participants in the current study were randomly assigned to one of three experimental conditions'
9
13
131
“It is a bit strange for me that authors have used Python for statistical analysis instead of SPSS or MATLAB as usual. Please, explain”
8
20
129
'This is an interesting manuscript, not because of its results, but because of its complete ignorance of due scientific process'
2
18
131
“The authors use a log transformation, which is statistical machination, intended to deceive”
1
15
129
“For a section on thought, very little seems to have gone into it.”
0
25
128
“The authors are permitted to believe what they want to, but the data did not support "important implications"."
0
30
126
“I would very much have liked to read the article promised in the abstract.”
0
56
125
'There is no research methodology, no data, no model, no significant analysis and no conclusions which arise from the study’
1
38
125
'I nearly said reject, but then I recalled that I have a hangover and am feeling grumpy'
1
18
124
“Table 4 seems unnecessary given figure 8. Indeed, figure 8 also seems unnecessary.”
0
19
125
“The authors use a log transformation, which is statistical machination, intended to deceive”
2
32
124
'Figure 3: I haven't been this confused since Cardi B's 2019 Met Gala outfit'
1
17
124
"The supportive tone of this review… took some effort." -
0
18
122
SPACES AFTER MAJOR HEADINGS?!? THEY MAKE ME DISTRUST YOU, THE PEOPLE WHO TRAINED YOU, YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS, YOUR NEIGHBOURS AND *ESPECIALLY* YOUR PETS.
I submitted a manuscript using a default Word style for headings and things. This is the very first comment in my rejection note. Reviewers: don’t do this, it’s really 🙄
39
19
321
3
17
122
'I am personally offended that the authors believed that this study had a reasonable chance of being accepted to a serious journal'
2
30
123
PhD project paper submitted one year after successful defense:
"Student should get a new PhD project"
0
8
119