Mastodawn

@brembs This is working under the assumption that submissions meet the standard of professional scholarly work. This low bar is increasingly not met, and often by a large margin.

@brembs These days I'm inclined to review papers as the CRAN team does with R software packages. You just list the obvious mistakes and return it to sender. Fix and try again.

Even this I think is a courtesy - as the rules should be clear (and here some problems might rest - that the expected minimum standards aren't well defined and variable).

I guess there are huge discipinary differences? Disciplines that have seen a lot of influx in recent years seem to be more affected? If that were so, my use of "professional" would be warranted 😆

@brembs This is part of it, lack of an education. But IMO this is a lame excuse by those responsible (for this education) to then shift the burden to editors and or reviewers.

@brembs And I won't "delve" into the whole business of AI. Which makes things seem polished, but might as well still be a turd.

👍

Which fits nicely with the topic of this article that rejections ought to be well-written 😆

@brembs Just make sure to avoid em-dashes.

@brembs Apologies for my rants btw.

No problem! No need to apologize.

We've all been there. Just the frequencies and degrees vary.

Absolutely!
Which is precisely why I argue that rejections, in principle, ought to hardly/not exist, as long as everyone just did behave professionally and did their effing job properly 😇

I guessed that there would be this counter-argument and so I tried to use the word 'professional' to distinguish such work from, e.g., dillettante or amateur 😇