For those curious, this was a rejection, including this comment from Reviewer 3:
"An article like this is just a waste of peer-reviewing resources"
https://twitter.com/cMadan/status/1024480239383134209 …
-
-
Replying to @cMadan
Any possibility their comment has been misinterpreted and what they actually meant was "this article is so obviously incredible that peer-reviewing is transparently unnecessary"?
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @Rachel_Bedder
Don't think so. The same reviewer ends with "Was the author taking the study seriously??" ...no, I wrote a new brain morphology toolbox and evaluated it on 1403 brain MRIs (across four different samples) just to waste your time.
4 replies 0 retweets 34 likes -
Replying to @cMadan @Rachel_Bedder
If I had hair I would tear it out on your behalf
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
That's so unbelievable — in that I believe you but it's mind-boggling. So the reason it's a waste of their time in their opinion is because they basically just didn't like it?
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.
