Ok but it seems so nitpickingly petty to have a problem with things in the second round of reviews that were not in the first round at all but have not changed. Come on.
-
-
imho the whole project is about collecting and applying this really trivial amount of power. Some people are responsible with it and some aren't, and you can find people of weak character at all levels.
-
I agree but people with more prestige/power (professors for escape) can jettison a paper for their own benefit way more easily.
-
*Escape=example
-
To give some concrete cases, I know of two papers which were purposefully delayed during the review process (like a year) so the reviewing professors could quickly run copy cat studies and get them published first. Very pure example of malicious scooping.
-
No grad student or postdoc would get away with that for many reasons.
-
What I said was about hyperfocus on things like grammar. You’re taking about something else.
-
Yeah, indeed. The hyper focus on grammar is exactly what a *specific kind* of ECR might obsess about. Sadly it's likely because they genuinely can't comment on anything of substance and might even have been a bad choice of reviewer. Most ECRs though, in my opinion do a good job.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
this is my experience as well
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.

it's a shifting baseline, "highest nail will be hammered down" kind of thing?
But also i suppose the object of Power, is Power