Dude, you rejected once a manuscript of mine to #PLoSCompNeuro just because it didn’t have experimental data included :)
Many times, paper rejections are not due to weaknesses of the paper but misunderstandings of the goals. E.g. I often get "provides no mechanistic insight" when I write a normative paper or pure engineering papers. Who would be able to share examples of such reviewer confusions?
-
-
-
Yes. Was policy at the time. Sorry.
-
Oh and part of the reason for the start of
@NBDT_journal
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
also, the word "mechanistic" is so overused right now it makes me sick.
-
I want to hear more about this
-
Primarily a physiological reaction… to me what is mechanistic depends on the context - what's the relevant function and scales of a process. Now it's generally used out of context as if it's something by itself, mainly for social signalling.
-
I, still, want to hear more about this. :D
-
I, feel, you are digging into complexity view of "mechanistic model", aka its parts
-
Depending on who you talk to... mechanism can imply either purpose or purposelessness Lol
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I observe that Twitter often has similar misunderstandings, e.g.: Tweet: "I like apples" Response: "Why do you hate bananas?"
-
Apples make my mouth itch. REJECT!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
reviewer didn't understand why capturing empirical phenomena part of my recent modeling work is relevant to the modeling.
-
while the whole point was to have a model that actually captures empirical phenomena at multiple levels of description.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I feel this is often the case when reviewers go on 'autopilot' because they are almost too familiar with the topic. Eg. Reviewer insists on a particular control group/condn when it has no relevance to the paper's central Q (but is used by many other similar papers in the area)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I get reviewer comments which indicate confusion all the time. However that means there IS a weakness in the paper; poor communication!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
First review: “This is a paper describing a novel, coupled dynamics model. Statistical analyses are unnecessary.” Revision: Removed GLM. Second review: “Why were no analyses of variance or equivalent non-parametric tests performed on the model output?”
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It can sometimes be frustrating if you’re walking the boundaries of two fields: I get comments from evolutionary biologists like “nothing new here, we know stuff will evolve in evol. experiments”, & then from neuroscientist you get “cool, evolution, but no new mechanism”
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
"Does not advance a new mechanism... " No It wasn't supposed to
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Usually a paper rejection is connected to a journal, so it also depends on what the journal editors consider suitable for their readers..
-
Agree. A while ago we submitted a theoretical paper, checking the 'Theory' box. Turns out that reviewers didn't care about theory at all and just complained about lack of real-world applications and analysis of empirical systems...
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.