Academic reviewer dichotomy ...

I should not be surprised, two kind and very helpful colleagues also share that I shouldn't be surprised. Yet, you may have guessed it I am a little surprised, entertained and maybe amused.

Last April a good academic friend and I submitted a paper to a well known journal. Beginning to wonder if it had been lost in the chasm of infinite internet journal technology. I receive an email earlier this week.
"Your paper has been accepted, subject to minor revisions."
Cue celebration, bunting and smiles.

Reading the reviewers feedback, from one reviewer we have:
Impact ... Significant; "There has been limited research into the effectiveness of ____ and the authors have accessed a very significant number of users."
We also have from the other reviewer:
Recommendation "Author(s) Should Prepare A Major Revision For A Second Review" ... then the soul goes into a diatribe seemingly basing the entire paper on gaming simulation. Where the software in question is based on gaming theory.
Don't you simply love the major differences between opinions.

However, we have to only make minor revisions, some of the feedback is helpful and it will be worth a full reread. We have to respond to the 'comments', which won't be particularly challenging.


Popular posts from this blog

HeartBleed article in @ConversationUK ...

Simulation vs emulation vs virtualisation ....

Slow are the wheels that maketh the #Linux NAL ...