G-ω - Stuff'n Chest

Rejection commentaries

Find below a list of (good, funny, ironic, weird or what else you think of) reviewer’s comments or excerpts I received after rejecting some manuscripts submitted for publication over the years.

The purpose of sharing this is for educational purposes in my class of Scientific Production. Failing is part of the process, but reviewing process should be always questioned in terms of ethics, prejudice with nationality, affiliation and nationality, as well as response style, and argumentation used in rebuttal.

I hope these examples help students to understand the good and band nuances of publishing a paper. Behold the “Force’s Dark Side” of paper submission trail.

• “Thank you for your email. You have not included all the co-authors listed in your manuscript in the submission data, João Pessoa is missing.”
  • Comment: João Pessoa is the Brazilian city of my affiliation. 😆
• “Although I think the current prose is rough, the overall treatment will be of interest to many working on rock and reservoir characterization.”
  • Comment: funny…
• “(…) it rapidly become clear there needs to be a wholesale recrafting.”
  • Comment: the market way to say that “this is horrible”.
• “lack of novelty”
  • Comment: from the Editor, exactly like that, with anything else.
• “I believe this manuscript is better suited to a mathematics journal.”
  • Comment: a good one.
• “However, most of the references are clumped together in the first few pages of the paper.”
  • Comment: this one was an eye-opening experience and came from one of the best reviews I received. Since I received this one, I began to write much better introductions. I use this example to warn students about the bad idea of oversupply a paper with references just to sound “Look, I am well supported with literature”, but forgetting to discuss what matters.
• “The authors presented a substantial contribution to an interesting topic of the Prediction of “[paper title hidden]”.
  • Comment: fine, but this was not the manuscript I had submitted. Well, sometimes journals have mistakes… 🧐
• “You classified your manuscript as a research paper, however, I think it is more like a review paper.”
  • Comment: although this was a unilateral viewpoint in this review, I use this example to tell students on paper suitability.
• “(…) This requires looking more into rather than just whitewash it…“
  • Comment: when your analysis appear to be insufficient. I liked whitewashing term!
• “Managerial implications and insights of the proposed method should be extended. I suggest you discuss the benefits of your approach, for example, at the economic, environmental, and social levels.”
  • Comment: is it too much for a single paper? Gosh!
• “Really, this is not a scientific work.”
  • Comment: short and “cute”.

• “From the provided list of potential Reviewers, five are not cited in the reference list, while one is cited with an old publication.”

• “Although your manuscript falls within the aim and scope of this journal, it is being declined due to lack of sufficient novelty. We receive a much larger number of papers than we are able to accept.”