Throughout my career, I have published many scientific papers and reviewed even more papers. So, I have received or encountered many interesting reviews. Here are the 3 most memorable comments that I have received so far.
#3) “The paper is very poorly written, lacks objective detail, and makes fatal flaw assumptions about the role of PNA….. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of …. PNA and the overall role of teleconnections…… The PNA does not foster or physically cause …. or even the background environments. The PNA is …. not the causal mechanism. In addition to this fatal flaw …. reject.”
This paper was rejected. So, I did not have a chance to reply. First of all, this review is filled with hyperbolic words, like “fundamental misunderstanding“, and “fatal flaw“. Just calm down, buddy, will you? But, more importantly, this reviewer is a typical one who does not (or is unwilling to) understand how climate affects extreme weather events. For instance, El Nino increases the frequency of wet conditions in the South US, through a PNA-like teleconnection pattern. This does not mean the South US will be wet for the entire duration of that El Nino event. Yes, the reviewer is not entirely wrong because it is the weather that determines if it rains or not on a particular date and location. But, El Nino and its teleconnection can increase (or decrease) the odds of that weather pattern occurring. Unfortunately, this sort of ill-informed review will continue to happen to those who work on climate and weather interactions.
#2) “It has been well understood that ENSO increases the Mississippi river discharge …… Based on this, I do not provide any specific comment on the content, and do not recommend acceptance of this manuscript.”
It took 9 months to get the first review of this paper, which was eventually published in a different journal. This review (and the only one) came with a decision letter saying that the editor agreed with this reviewer, thus rejecting the paper. Of course, this paper is much more than just El Nino and Mississippi River discharge as it is clear from the title “ENSO-induced co-variability of salinity, plankton biomass, and coastal currents in the northern Gulf of Mexico.”
#1) “I have reviewed this paper previously…… So, I am rejecting the paper.”
This happened to me more than 10 years ago. So, the above quote is based on my memory. This particular reviewer rejected this paper multiple times in three different journals with the same short comment. So, this reviewer must be a big shot. But, the point is that this reviewer did not bother to read the revised versions, and assumed that his/her comments were not addressed. I did address that …… buddy.
Well, as you may agree, these reviews are not so crazy. I am just frustrated by ill-informed and lazy reviewers. Here is one final thought. If you have already rejected a paper, please do not review it again. Give it another chance with a new reviewer. Of course, you may want to be the police and feel that it is your job to make sure bad papers are not published. That’s great. Good for you. But, please consider the possibility that you may be an ill-informed or a lazy police. If you disagree, that proves my point.
Ocean to Climate 
Leave a comment