Some of these were possibly submitted by people I work with. Or at least I don't understand why they are supposed to be funny. For example:
There are FAR too many analyses and results. The reader is swamped. It's simply not possible to take it all in. It needs to be pruned.
The worst I've ever written might fit. It was a review submitted to a journal entitled something like "Recent Patents In Ydnew's Subfield." The authors didn't reference even one patent, only articles, and the most recent was 1998. I tried to be polite, but I think I failed. Worse, they resubmitted after adding one (1) reference to a patent from the late 80s. The revised version was accepted (not by me!) and published.
The second worst was one my boss passed me to review. I included a jokey private note saying that I was dumber for having read it and that I wished to have my time refunded. He included that line in private notes to the editor. I do hope it didn't get back to the authors.
Mostly, I've had pretty good luck with peer review. I feel sort of bad that I never get asked to review anything. In my old field, I did. I guess they don't trust me here.
Sometimes the hashtags suggest why the authors might have gotten negative reviews:
"Unless and until more appropriate methods are employed, it is impossible to judge the claims of the authors although, based on previous results, there is real reason to believe that the claims may pan out in some generic sense.
#Quick 180 #backtrack much #so is that an accept? #submission
That's not a quick 180! They're saying other people's research makes your claims seem plausible but you've done a completely shit job of testing them yourselves. Oy.
Whoa. I was literally reading SMRS *today*, and I considered linking exactly that post to Nosflow's Other Place Wall, telling him I thought of him when I read it. Spooky.
5 is right. I've been the person that the person on the receiving end of that type of review calls. It's usually a six beer conversation.
I can't find my all-time favorite referee report! It went something like "this paper is technically correct, so I don't feel comfortable rejecting it, but the authors should consider their own reputations and withdraw it."
Was that as insane a thing to say as it sounded, or did it somehow make sense in the context of the paper?
It was a pretty dull paper, by our standards.
There was a fantastic livejournal post I came across years ago where the author tore into their professor (or high school teacher?) for giving them a bad grade and it all sounded plausibly unfair until you got to the bottom of the entry where the author posted a copy of the essay, thinking that would vindicate them.
I think the funniest review I ever got was one that said "The paper has a significant level in the field of (Madame Curie's research area) in comparison with other papers published in this Journal."
Is this where we compare salaries SAT scores numbers of publications?
My second paper, first real research one (other was a review) two reviewers overruled another who didn't like it and the odd one out had a big tantrum writing sarcastically about how the journal sucked.
I was just invited to edit a book which apparently means pick people to invite to write chapters, review them, then get my name on the cover even though I don't have to write a chapter myself. Then I get $5 in royalties. (8% actually but split with a coeditor I picked)
Oh my, those reviews are great.
Speaking of peer review, this is an interesting talk on how people write and evaluate papers in cryptography. (Skip to 29:00, where he starts talking about peer review.)
14: if you by chance get your wife to produce the cover art, for free, you should mos def credit her. especially if you were somehow to overlook doing so on the first such book, and then do another similar one. if you were to also neglect to credit her on the second book it might precipitate marital disharmony.
I'm really annoyed with myself for losing that referee report. I can't find it on either of my computers or my backup hard drives and the journal's website doesn't let me access it anymore. I loved it, especially since it made one of my collaborators really hilariously angry.
My favorite reviewer story came from a friend of mine, Professor E, once got a referees report saying "The author clearly needs to acquaint themselves with the excellent work done by Professor E in this area."
The negative review I'm most proud of receiving said (I paraphrase lightly) "This paper is an effective critique of [paper published in the same journal], but there is a majority opinion among the referees and editors that attentive readers would never take [earlier paper] literally, and no more space should be given to what is actually an ill-informed take on these issues". I refrained from suggesting that in the future, the journal indicate in the table of contents which papers should be taken literally, and which in a figurative sense.
My favorite opening line of a review I've written is "This manuscript is without scientific merit and must be rejected."
I've just hit the 5 month mark on a paper we submitted to one of the top journals. I wish there was some way to get some information on what its odds are at this point. Even just a "We're sending it out to more referees but we estimate it has a 30% chance of acceptance at this point."
Reviewer's comment on a paper I translated: "The manuscript may benefit from the proofreading by the native English speaker."
My favorite opening line of a review I've written is "This manuscript is without scientific merit and must be rejected."
Wow. That is right up there with LB's deathless "This novel shares the flaws of its genre and is also independently not good".
And 19.1 is great. "Your paper is really good at pointing out the flaws in this other paper, but we reckon the other paper is so obviously nonsense that publishing yours would just look cruel".
18- I reviewed something a couple months ago where I could have pulled the "failed to cite paper by me" but I didn't want to be that guy. Then the reviews came back and the other reviewer said "failed to cite paper by SP."
22.last: It was more "We're so embarrassed by having published that paper that we're trying to pretend it never happened."
Other than methodological soundness, I still have a very poor feel for what makes an important paper. Which I guess is why I work for people who read the literature.
Since this seems like the appropriate-ish place to complain, my grad school social circle has drama that I want no part of, but I'm getting heated e-mails about. A friendly acquaintance is having/had her PhD revoked, many years after graduating. Her advisor says she falsified data to graduate. She says she ran the experiment once and insisted that he not publish it without independent verification by someone else that is was reproducible. It seems they were unable to reproduce the result after she left but published anyway. She says she thought her result had checked out. She is suing the school.
A close friend tells me someone found her unambiguously manipulated original data. Another less close friend tells me she's being hung out to dry by her advisor because he was caught publishing something irreproduceable (which doesn't make a ton of sense, since I doubt anyone elsewhere would have tried to reproduce). I'm getting e-mails about how women in science get screwed in lots of ways, and she's asked me to submit a complaint of gender bias so the lawsuit has more evidence that the theory of revoked PhD as fall girl appears more likely.
Frankly, the place was crazy sexist, but not in a way that I'd be even a little bit comfortable filing a complaint. I suspect my observations would be quantifiable, but I certainly don't have numbers. Not looking for advice, but I'd be very happy if I never had to hear about it again. I'd also not rather have these folks write me off as unsympathetic and sexist. Yuck.
I didn't even know you could revoke Ph.Ds.
That's quite a pickle, ydnew. Yuck indeed.
Whatever you do, don't talk to a Rolling Stone reporter.
I know you said you weren't looking for advice. I assumed you meant you weren't looking for useful advice and that I'm still in the clear.
Oh, ydnew, that sounds awful all around.
27: wowwwwwww. I am so sorry you are being sucked into that quagmire/viper's nest/sarlacc pit.
Blech!
(so do you think she did it?)
She says she ran the experiment once and insisted that he not publish it without independent verification by someone else that is was reproducible.
See, this is pretty much exactly what I would tell someone to do with my falsified experimental results if I was worried that they might be exposed.
31: Or one from New York Magazine.
so do you think she did it?
I thought we were done talking about Serial for a while.
Weird coincidence. I was just reading about this (assuming it's the same person).
"Your PhD is revoked" is pretty much the apex of bad reviews.
A friend once got something along the lines of "The author should read a few scientific papers before attempting to publish one."
It was indeed a shitty paper, but she'd been coerced into submitting anyway by her boss. Still stings, though.
If she insisted it not be published it seems likely she'd have emails to that effect, if not "don't publish this yet" then at least "that single run of the experiment showed that..."
Thanks for the sympathy, y'all. It's just such a nasty situation.
28: You can if the data are fraudulent. Apparently, her advisor re-convened her committee without telling her or allowing her to present her side, and they agreed to revoke it. The odd thing is, she still has her good job - I wonder how that works.
30: Thanks, Uncle knecht, but that'd be very out of character. I actually attended a meeting with these women and a friendly Women's Studies prof to complain while I was there. The university investigated itself and found no problems, hooray. I also turned in my first advisor's student for cheating, twice. Luckily, he didn't figure out that was me. Those were a bigger risk, since I didn't have my degree nor much publication record nor quality professional references.
39: No, that's actually not the same person (I think). I think the one you read about admitted wrongdoing and isn't suing. This one got press, too, but not the current thing in the news.
35: I don't know. At this point, I've actually pulled the dissertation and looked at that and the published data. It all looks reasonable to me, so that's no help. The advisor is known for being sort of ridiculous (he's the buy-me-a-gift guy), but I don't think he would publish stuff he thought wasn't real. She graduated very quickly and was one of his favorites, but I know she tried to quit a few times and he talked her out of it. This was the last thing she needed to graduate, so she was under pressure.
In the end, gut says yeah, maybe she did.
42: Verbal conversation in exit interview-type thing, she says. Can't imagine if she is telling the truth that she didn't object at the publication draft, since it's exactly what's in the diss.
But really, no matter what I think, I won't win with the "she's getting screwed by sexism" faction, whom I legitimately like. I don't think they'll see the two issues as separable.
43.3 should read "first advisor's favorite student."
Surely there's a formal procedure for this and it'd be pretty shocking if 43.1 were that procedure. This is how sexists often get caught: doing something arguably justified in a corner cutting way that they wouldn't have done with a man. (See Berkeley and Jen/ny Har/rison.)
"Insisted that he not publish it without independent verification by someone else that is was reproducible" almost sounds like an admission of guilt.
Lord knows the proofs weren't all right in the last section I was finishing at the deadline. Though I'm pretty sure I didn't know if any particular errrors at the moment of submission. The line between deadline forces sloppiness and fraud could potentially get a little gray.
43.last- so the N=1 experiment is in her dissertation and is not noted as such? Yeah, she's screwed.
At my previous institution a postdoc got nailed for exaggerating N in his PhD work. He actually did do the measurements more than once (like N=4, but he reported N>10) and when people went back and did everything properly the results held up. It seemed like such a pointless way to blow up your career.
I don't really have experience with that area of academia, but the bit where the committee reconvened and then, I guess, just sent her a note saying "oh, yeah we changed our mind about that thing years ago we're taking back the degree" just seems bizarre to me. They really never checked in with her? This is really the process?
Whether or not she did it, it kind of sounds like that data may have already been a point of contention at the original defense (and that not all the committee was on board). Then the adviser embarrasses himself later on, and at least a few of the original committee are already on board with revoking the degree. Unless they have some really unambiguous evidence though I have trouble believing that it would stick if she's willing to make the university choose between a major academic scandal and "ok so some of our senior professors are dickheads".
I bet the rest of the committee refused to buy him expensive scotch.
50: It is pretty weird. With Sezen scandal at Columbia, I believe they contacted her and gave her a chance to explain things before the ax came down. Just sending a note "By the way, we're revoking your degree" doesn't sound like a very kosher process for this sort of thing.
I don't see how this fits in with the pattern of sexism, honestly. Putting her data in the article without being replicated, to try to get a publication out quicker - sexist? Convincing her that it's OK if she graduates before this thing is replicated, because the adviser is convinced it'll be replicated - sexist?
And now, going back and blaming her -- would the adviser really fall on his sword if it was a male student instead?
Do we know they just sent her a note? Could there have been a longer process that hasn't been more publicized by the participants?
48/49: Her N=1 without noting it was in keeping with the practices of the group and the subfield, AFAICT. I don't think anyone found it remarkable. I think you both might know the story/subfield? I don't really want to link since I'm not anonymous at all, and some of the places it was posted are no longer up.
50.2: It looks like it should work on paper. I doubt it was contentious at the original defense. The story I heard from the close friend was along the lines of, "The group was doing a clean-up of closets and old boxes of data, and someone came across data that was obviously edited in an inappropriate way. This person handed it to the advisor, who then presented it to the committee and retracted the publication." I do know the postdoc assigned to follow up and polish rough edges before publication was unable to repeat it, and I imagine the advisor attributed it to the postdoc's being less talented. This is all total rumor and gossip, though. That's why it's a bit hard to guess what happened. If she's telling the truth, which is completely possible, she's in a pretty terrible situation. If she's not, it's hard to know whether it was sort of sloppiness/temporary insanity or more sinister.
53: Yeah, it's a little convoluted, but the contention is that the advisor would not have revoked her degree if she'd been male over this particular thing and also might not have published over her objection (if, in fact, the objection happened). In fact, the same group had a student in the same year who does appear to have falsified/screwed up data in his diss, who did not face professional consequences. The issues with the data could have been due to incompetence (I don't think there was any smoking gun), and I think there was more ambiguity, but the student who inherited the project (which was not as close to publication) realized the issues, told the boss, reengineered, and got it to work for real. I've heard rumors of similar stuff in other groups where the guy got the degree and kept it, despite major Photoshopping of data.
54: Just her statements.
There is a colorable argument that this is on topic.
Mom calls in when political consultant brothers on opposing sides of the aisle are on C-Span.
"And I'm you're mother," Joy continued as both brothers flinched. "And I disagree that all families are like ours. I don't know many families that are fighting at Thanksgiving. I was very glad that this Thanksgiving was a year that you two were supposed to go to your in-laws. And I'm hoping you'll have some of this out of your system when you come here for Christmas. I would really like a peaceful Christmas."
"And I'm you're mother," Joy continued as both brothers flinched.
The ability to detect a misplaced apostrophe aurally is some nosflow-level pedantry,
She graduated very quickly and was one of his favorites, but I know she tried to quit a few times and he talked her out of it. This was the last thing she needed to graduate, so she was under pressure.
I dunno if this explains anything, but I'm just curious. Did something happen that caused her to go from being a favorite student then, to not even being invited to her own trial now? Also, was there a reason why she was under so much pressure to graduate, if she was already ahead of schedule?
I doubt ydnew knows the answer to that, but yes, that kind of thing is certainly what you'd wonder about.
Also colorably on-topic: Looks like I don't have to break into the houses of any former TNR folks and lick their plates as Rebecca Schoenkopf has done the moral equivalent at Wonkette with "Inside The Collapse Of The New Yorker's Inside The Collapse Of The New Republic".
What a horrible position to be in, Ydnew!
58: Guessing, but I think she was under pressure to finish because she had a good job lined up with a particular start date. Someone else in their group lost a job by having to go back and do a few more experiments post-defense, which blew his start date. This happened right before she finished, so I'm sure it was on her mind. The usual order was: advisor agrees student is largely done, student job hunts and writes, student defends and starts job shortly after. I think she might have gotten his agreement prematurely because he liked her and wanted to see her graduate before she burned out and just quit.
I think once they found the data (if that's true) or he decided something was wrong with her work, she was pretty much dead to him. That's not so difficult to understand. I can't imagine him calling her to ask for an explanation if he was in a rightous rage about what the data (seemed? If this is true?) to show.
In the very same review as the line "The author clearly needs to acquaint themselves with the excellent work done by Professor E in this area" came the opening sentence, "It is hard to read this paper and think of the author as anything other than an apologist for the X industry." [For the sake of slight anonymity, replace X with a highly politicized resource extraction activity]
Worthy of framing!
Also, hi. Finally chiming in.
Hi. I think the fruit basket was lost about three years ago.
https://www.ediblearrangements.com/fruit-gifts/star-big-arrangement-hd-dp-da-db-3394?t=1418761174087
Here! It's time this blog stopped being so darn cheap.
That's what the fuck I'm talking about, Peep.
Chocolate pineapple stars! Hell, yes!
Should have spoken up a while ago.
It's certainly different from the old fruit basket.
I hope this basket link preserves Paltrow's valuable curation and clickthrough info, but here's a more special basket.
73: Is this an updated version of the Hans Christian Anderson story? Gwynneth Paltrow's New Fruit Basket?
skillful linking
http://www.aplusrstore.com/product/1368/3603/oversized-wire-baskets-neon-red-22-wide?source=pjn&subid=73861
Fuck it, $680 fruit baskets for everyone. Who wants some? It's Christmastime.
Well, in Whoville, they say, that the former Judas Priest member's heart grew three sizes that day.
67: I just noticed that one of the ingredients is kale. WTF? Where do you go to get away from kale these days? Are they going to start putting them in Snickers bars? On Big Macs?
It's a decorative green leaf that doesn't wilt easily -- I think it's structurally excusable.
Having just had an Edible Arrangement, I can confirm the kale is not supposed to be edible. It covers the styrofoam the skewers are suspended in, for lack of a better description. Apparently high-end baskets come with better chocolate options than the half-spheres of apple dipped in chocolate that ours had, as they should. The girls convinced themselves these were chocolate-covered mushrooms and were not interested.
For $680 I'd expect a lot less filler. Get that canteloupe and honeydew out of there.
I hear they're even putting it in children's ice cream.
80, 81: So, it's not about including the new hip miracle vegetable, it's more of a leftover from the time when kale was something your rabbit would eat, if there wasn't any carrots around.
For $680 I'd expect a lot less filler. Get that canteloupe and honeydew out of there.
Exactly my thoughts on reading. For $680 you should get a basketful of premium strawberries with cream and chocolate.
Worst review I've gotten: a review that rejected a paper of mine for making "unjustified claims" in what was simply a motivational sentence in the introduction explaining why we should still care about the problem I was solving, because the metric in question was related to a bunch of other things that people still cared about. It wasn't a quantitative claim - it shouldn't be particularly controversial that reducing the length of a wire in a circuit, all other things being equal, reduces the capacitance you have to drive, the time it takes to switch the signal, or the power it takes to do so. Those relationships emerge from the basic models that nearly everyone in the industry was using at the time. I wasn't trying to make a claim about how much those other metrics would improve, just that the direction of change in the things people cared about was very likely to be positive, and therefore it was worth reading the rest of my paper even if you didn't directly care about the primary metric I was optimizing.
Most critical review I've given: a paper, that I was already rejecting for other reasons, where I found that several of their references were simply wrong (wrong journal name, wrong volume number, etc.). In many of those cases I was able to ultimately locate the article they were trying to cite by guessing what they might have gotten wrong, but really, guys?
64: Ugh, what an unfortunate situation.
it shouldn't be particularly controversial that reducing the length of a wire in a circuit, all other things being equal, reduces the capacitance you have to drive, the time it takes to switch the signal, or the power it takes to do so. Those relationships emerge from the basic models that nearly everyone in the industry was using at the time.
More than just industry models, even.
27 et seq.: Chiming in late, but this seems like an awful situation all around. Faking data is obviously bad, but so is sexism, and even revoking a degree without giving the person being attacked a chance to make their case. (I'd _hope_ we couldn't do that here.) The (understandable) everybody-must-take-sides aspect seems especially ugly. So, sympathies and expressions of moral support from a complete stranger, ydnew, for whatever they're worth.
Welcome, Taprobana.
Thanks, Cosma & all. It's nice to be able to complain a little here about what a globally lousy situation it is, since most folks I might talk it over with are pretty outraged one way or the other.
Given 55.last, my money is on her faking and then not telling anyone she knows about the hearings being held.
I just noticed that one of the ingredients is kale. WTF? Where do you go to get away from kale these days? Are they going to start putting them in Snickers bars? On Big Macs?
Have you ever asked yourself, Mandrake, why I do not eat fruit baskets? Why I eat only raw meat and pure, lightly steamed leguminous vegetables?
(Well, no, actually, Tim, I haven't.)
Have you ever heard of... kale, Mandrake?
(Er, yes I have, Tim. It's something they put in stir-fries, isn't it?)
Do you know, Mandrake, that there are plans to start adding kale to hot dogs? To toothpaste? To imported whisky? To furniture polish? To Jello, Mandrake? Children's Jello?
Having just had an Edible Arrangement, I can confirm the kale is not supposed to be edible. It covers the styrofoam the skewers are suspended in, for lack of a better description.
URGENT FOR URPLE: the styrofoam is also not supposed to be edible. Dammit, Thorn, you have to make that sort of thing clearer.