If you submit a review for a paper and all it says is, "We already know this" (or something similar) but don't provide citations you should be banned from reviewing papers.
If we already knew this, do you think I'd've written it ya twit? Why don't you check my lit review where it shows the existing research _doesn't_ already know this.
Nonsense.
(Reviewer 2 recommended R&R with minor revisions....)
There is always that one fucking reviewer who is just awful.
I got a review once where someone asked if I had ever encountered the English language 😂
LOL
It's not like I'm mad about the rejection. I'm mad that the reviewer said it's a good paper but offers nothing new. SHOW ME THE PAPERS THAT ALREADY DID THIS THEN YA MELLON
I'm dying. I think reviewers have troll syndrome - you will never know who they are, so they can be absolutely cruel.
@JWright as someone once said: science is based on replicating results to the point of banality, but journals are loathe to publish articles where this mission-critical work is done
a tendency clearly embodied in your unhelpful reviewer
@Sargoth
Who needs confirmatory results when you can publish super wrong sensational stuff?
Social science is the process of publishing increasingly outlandish stuff and knowing absolutely nothing afterward
>_>
In hindsight I really wish I would've just gone straight for the douchecanoe
James Wright
cyborgneticz
Sargoth (skateboard aspect)
Ultraviolet ☀️ Photons