Okay. We all agree that it is a good idea to have some quality control for scientific publications. You know, to enhance reproducibility, to decrease fraud, to catch sloppy mistakes and misinterpretations that could all potentially lead to retractions. And of course, possibly even worse than a retraction, bad quality science could lead people astray and waste a lot of time and resources.
/rant modus on
What I do ABSOLUTELY not like. Reviewers going through a very rough time in their lives. Telling me to do certain experiments, that everyone in the field agrees on are not possible. Sure, I could *invent* the method, but that itself would be worthy of a N/C/S paper and take a few years, stupid! And oh yeah, even worse, the reviewer who asks only for things that are in the supplements and other than that only comments on my English. Did you even read the thing?
/rant modus off
I started wondering at some point whether I am overestimating our data and my writing. Until I wrote 2 reviews. And those brought back mainly really positive feedback, along with a few friendly posed suggestions. You can’t imagine how happy I was to read that “this review is very well written for a broad audience” et cetera. Still feeling pretty smug actually. Too bad I don’t know the reviewer who commented on the writing style earlier, or I would have forwarded him/her all these other comments that agree on our enjoyable and clear writing!
So yeah, I still agree that peer review is essential and needs to be critical. But please, do not overdo it 😦 It is always possible to find more experiments that would be exciting too…..