Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Going from academic article peer review to editing for pieces in non-academic publications is whiplash inducing.
Normal Editing Feedback: Good idea, this is a bit clunky, let's fix it.
Academic Peer Review: This is 98% perfect. F*** off and die we won't print this dreck. 
(I feel I should note that I haven't actually ever experienced rudeness or unprofessional comments from a peer reviewer or academic journal editor. So far my experiences with peer review, successful and unsuccessful, have been pretty good.)
So I am exaggerating for comedic effect. Nevertheless I think the contrast between editors who generally want to help you 'find' the final article (within reason) and academic editors and peer reviewers, who merely judge the final product as worthy or deficient, is marked.
Is there any clear reason for the difference? Like, why can't academia do the first one too?
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
