Paper Diplomacy

Oliver’s being very diplomatic in this image. Like it? Click HERE for more.

What we say and what we mean in our responses to reviewers.

Diplomacy is becoming a bit of a lost art on the world stage at the moment, but it’s one that scientists still routinely practice. Politely replying to a paper’s reviewers, often through gritted teeth and with white knuckles, tends to produce some phrases that would grace any ambassador’s speech. TIR samples a few.

What authors write: What authors mean:
We were surprised at the reviewer’s reaction to these data… We believe the reviewer was drunk, or suffering from the effects of prolonged sexual abstinence.
We would prefer not to implement… We’re not going to do it. Not unless you force us.
We are very grateful to the reviewer… We are not grateful at all.
We would like to thank the reviewer for bringing this to our attention. That was the interpretation we were trying to sweep under the carpet.
We feel that this would be outside the scope of the present work. The reviewer is trying to make us produce a whole second paper.
We had accidentally overlooked this publication… Oh man, you totally saved us from making fools of ourselves.
We have added the requested citations. We have cited the reviewer’s own papers, which we disagree with.
We have incorporated the model suggested by the reviewer. We have now included the reviewer’s pet theory, but we still don’t believe it.
We respectfully disagree with the reviewer’s assessment. The reviewer is our main competitor.
We were pleased that two of the three reviewers were enthusiastic about the paper. How do you editors always, always manage to find one asshole to evaluate our stuff?
This point was actually addressed in the earlier paragraph. The reviewer has clearly not read the paper carefully enough.
Reviewer 1 raised a large number of issues, but these were mostly small corrections. Reviewer 1 is a postdoc.
We have implemented the small number of suggestions made by Reviewer 2. We love Reviewer 2! Why can’t all reviewers be like Reviewer 2?
As requested, we have moved these data to the supplementals We really don’t care any more. Just please, please accept it for publication.
We feel it would be premature to… That’s the start of our next paper.
It had not escaped our notice that… It had totally escaped our notice that…
Due to space constraints… We can’t be bothered to include this.
We were delighted at the reviewers’ assessments. They were so gentle with us, we actually orgasmed.
The reviewer has already made this point once before. This review was written by multiple people in one group who took turns trashing it.
We feel that inclusion of the data from this control would be superfluous. That experiment was done by a rotation student and it looks terrible.
As was stated by Shaw et al, 1923… You think you can out-reference us? Brace yourself!
This feedback was not terribly constructive. Seriously, who let this animal off its leash? They’re psychotic.
We feel that speculating on this point would be unproductive. We’re not going to tell you what experiments we’re doing next.
We have removed our speculation on this point. Fine, be boring and unimaginative. We don’t care, we’ve got ideas to burn.
Repeating the experiments in another species would be beyond the scope of the present work The reviewer has only skimmed the manuscript and this was the best they could come up with.
We have, as requested, re-arranged and cropped all the images and put scale bars on every one. Why are microscopists so unbelievably fussy?
Upon consideration, we decided to remove this panel from the figure. We realised that we’ve lost the raw data so we can’t rebut your point.
We do not think that adding more data would develop this point. The first author is no longer in the group and nobody else knows how to do the assay.
Implementing this request would be far from trivial. Our collaborator is refusing to do it. Do you want to try and persuade them? We can’t.
The reviewer may be underestimating the difficulty of this request. If they actually understood the technique, they would realise that what they are asking for is literally impossible.
We would like to thank the reviewer for their constructive and balanced critique. Hallelujah! For once, somebody actually knows how to do this job properly.
We think this criticism was rather unfair. You made the first author cry.

Can you think of any other choice examples of paper diplomacy? Let TIR know…

Acknowledgements: Graham Warren and Oliver Hoeller, for suggestions and feedback.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s