Oh maybe I don't even want to type this out. I am kind of pizzed right now. I reviewed a paper in Feb, spotted some but not all lapses in the analysis done to generate this paper and was asked to review the new submission. --which is done as a new submission, not responding to reviewer comments. Its ALMOST identical and none of the analysis problems were addressed.
#@(!(!*@*@* TWERPS wasting my time. Which I don't manage as well as I should but still, plus they are also wasting the time of 2 other reviewers. I am going to print the old and new and look at side by side to see just HOW much of a copy this is. and then I, MS. easy-going, usually only correct a few grammar mistakes and maybe catch a plot or 2 that is not clear am most likely going to write an absolutely SCATHING review absolutely reaming them for not addressing the issues I pointed out 5-6 months ago, sheesh I did not even catch all the problems in the original because I reviewed the thing too quickly, but I think I pointed out enough that they should have done some serious emergency re-analysis of at least some of their data and done more comparisons of their results that they are using for conclusions versus other instrument types and other institutions' analysis of the same public GPS data?!? They must have thought they'd just get new reviewers who maybe wouldn't catch the problems. BWAA HA HA losers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment