The problem is even bigger when it is a grant (especially the resubmission). There is no recourse to deal with reviewers that clearly haven't read the grant!
-
-
-
Totally agree. For grant reviews, we are completely at the mercy of the reviewers. We can only hope for their fairness and lack of bias...
-
Just talked to the PO, apparently the discussion got completely sidetracked by the misinformation from the reviewer. This significantly dampened the enthusiasm for the grant as the discussion went on. It is probably the reason it wasn't funded.

-
This happened to me before. I eventually was able to guess correctly (I think?) who the reviewer #2 was and requested to remove him from reviewing my revised grant and it got funded the next round. Biased reviewers can kill grants and people's careers. They should be banned.
-
I actually don't think they were biased.... Just ignorant and careless. Also the RFA is over.... Oh well onward and upwards!
কথা-বার্তা শেষ
নতুন কথা-বার্তা -
-
-
Devastating. One of my most hated ‘weasel-word’ fallbacks of lazy reviewers: English grammar needs polishing by a native speaker. I once received this despite being London born &bred and priding myself on quite clear writing. Now, as editor at 2 journals, I disallow the comment
-
Glad not to be alone in getting this criticism about spelling/grammar. To describe me as fastidious when it comes to these issues would be an understatement, I could never understand the criticism. I assumed instead that the advanced Irish literary style might have lost them...
-
This is hilarious! I always assumed I get the "spelling/grammar/poor English" comments because English is not my first language. If it also happens to a Londoner and an Irish, that gives me comfort and makes me wonder about the legitimacy from such comments

-
A Londoner and an Irish walk into a bar. Londoner asks Irish if he knows the difference between a joist and a girder. Irish says Joyce write Finnegan’s Wake but Goethe wrote Faust.
-
(Patriotic, slightly chip on shoulder, old joke) (forgive me)
-
Would like to imagine that I’d have had insight as an editor to acknowledge Finnegan’s Wake as special, but possibly not....
কথা-বার্তা শেষ
নতুন কথা-বার্তা -
-
-
Happened to us. "Images too poor." "Must be quantified." No reference to specific figure panels, and ignored quant we actually did. Can't eds push back when rev lacks substance?
#notagainsteditors#dontrejectmypaper -
I believe the editors did note the lack of substance. Hopefully such referees will be weeded out of the system if enough editors notice a trend.
-
I have to assume they did, even if they didn't initially accept the paper due to this reviewer. We had to
#CallThemOut. Fortunately the other review was glowing.
কথা-বার্তা শেষ
নতুন কথা-বার্তা -
-
-
Maybe it would help if it’s mandated that the reviewers should disclose their identity?
-
I sign all of my reviews, mainly to keep me honest (e.g., back up my points) while trying to be objectively critical. I do still offer opinions, but I try to make it clear that it is just my opinion. I've been waiting for the post-review hate mail

-
"mainly to keep me honest while trying to be objectively critical" That's such a great point! (Self) Accountability should be a must. I always put a lot of effort into my reviews, but I fear backlash. Although noone emailed you yet, have you experienced anything negative?
-
No emails yet, thankfully. What feedback i have received from editors and authors (though the acknowledgements) has been positive. I haven't been doing it for long, so I imagine at some point I'll get something negative. IMO, in exchange for those rare occasions, it's worth it.
-
That said - I recently reviewed a paper for a big journal that had several well known authors. I decided to stay blinded so that i could give my _opinion_ about a sensitive subject without repercussions. It's nice to have the option of blind review, especially as a junior PI.
কথা-বার্তা শেষ
নতুন কথা-বার্তা -
-
-
My latest R01 review had one reviewer stating This is inadequate and that is inadequate and this is not worth investigating. No real explanations or facts or references to back it up. His/her score took away my chance of getting the Grant funded.
#Callthemout -
oh! And that my statements are naive (despite the fact that they were backed up with over 300 references and reviewer had NONE. This system needs to change, big time.
কথা-বার্তা শেষ
নতুন কথা-বার্তা -
লোড হতে বেশ কিছুক্ষণ সময় নিচ্ছে।
টুইটার তার ক্ষমতার বাইরে চলে গেছে বা কোনো সাময়িক সমস্যার সম্মুখীন হয়েছে আবার চেষ্টা করুন বা আরও তথ্যের জন্য টুইটারের স্থিতি দেখুন।