Join the Reviewer Roulette Hub
Share your experience with a Peer Review Champion or Peer Review Antagonist. Select the category that best describes your experience, and then provide the quote, context, and the journal you submitted to. Please refrain from publishing any personal information, including names or email addresses.
Peer Review Champion Constructive
3. I would term this section "Results" instead of case presentation. This section would then have two sub-sections: case presentation and results of t...
- Comment from Therapeutic Advances in Musculoskeletal Disea... reviewer
Peer Review Champion Constructive
After my reaction to the initial rejection by the Associate Editor, the Publishing Editor responded promptly and in a positive way, showing a kind ge...
- Comment from New Journal of Chemistry reviewer
Peer Review Antagonist Confusing
I, Dr. Imtiaz-ud-Din, as the corresponding author intend to share a comment about a manuscript recently submitted to an RSC journal that was initially...
- Comment from New Journal of Chemistry reviewer
Peer Review Antagonist Clueless
Here he authors' response to my comments (I am a reviewer, Q), the antagonists are the authors (Responses). Enjoy! "Ignorant reviewers, I respond once...
- Comment from Processes (ISSN 2227-9717) reviewer
Peer Review Antagonist Confusing
Dear Authors 1 This paper is written well However, the author should compare the research results to other works related to this topic in the results-...
- Comment from Optik: International Journal for Light and El... reviewer
Peer Review Antagonist Confusing
Because several reviewers in different rounds of review pointed out there is no strong proofs to support your claims, the revision seems cannot be com...
- Comment from IEEE Sensors reviewer
Peer Review Champion Constructive
Overall,this study is well-executed with mostly appropriate methods (see phylogenetic analysis comments below), well written and relevant to the expan...
- Comment from Microorganisms reviewer
Peer Review Antagonist Impractical
Referee 1: However, I believe that the authors have a considerable misunderstanding of the research on microwave absorbing materials. Referee 2: the a...
- Comment from Physica Scripta reviewer
Peer Review Champion Constructive
This manuscript is a thought-provoking addition to the literature on magnetic monopoles, obtained through symmetrizing Maxwell's equations. I offer a...
- Comment from Physics Essays reviewer
Peer Review Antagonist Confusing
The present study sheds light into thermally activated AS Raman emission triggered by plasmon absorption... Overall, the work is really interesting, b...
- Comment from ACS Photonics reviewer
Peer Review Antagonist Mean-spirited
This paper, although is well written, does not contain any physics, and therefore, is not suitable for publication in PRE. Moreover, from communicatio...
- Comment from Physical Review E reviewer
Peer Review Antagonist Impractical
Reviewer #1: I am sorry but the paper was not really improved. The construction of the sentences is grammatically and semantically incorrect. Then, in...
- Comment from Annals of Physics reviewer
Peer Review Champion Helpful
Reviewer #2: In the revised version the author has reasonably replied to my previous comment. I still recommend a revision of the maintext, since ther...
- Comment from Annals of Physics reviewer
Peer Review Champion Constructive
The reviewer suggests the authors use NMDS instead of PCA, as NMDS is more common than PCA in the literature.
- Comment from Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and... reviewer
Peer Review Champion Helpful
I would recommend considering PCA as a viable alternative for your dimensionality reduction needs. This would not only align your work with convention...
- Comment from Aquaculture International reviewer
Peer Review Champion Constructive
The text is also lacking a proper literature review. The library literature is replete with research on Disaster Management. The author has mentioned...
- Comment from Information Development reviewer
Peer Review Champion Constructive
• The title is informative and relevant, but it sounds not interesting. I suggest rewriting the title to be more interesting.
- Comment from Ad Hoc Networks reviewer
Peer Review Champion Constructive
Reviewer 1 Report In this paper, the author adopted deep learning classifier to automatically detect/classify the endangered whale calls. The whole lo...
- Comment from Sensors reviewer
Peer Review Champion Constructive
I would counsel the author to consider less 'subjective' language in future work/research. I found myself asking 'where is the evidence? for some stat...
- Comment from Counselling and Psychotherapy Research reviewer
Peer Review Champion Positive
This paper describes the usage of Bayesian Networks to estimate the Quality of Experience metric from users subjective preference. In particular, the...
- Comment from Јournal of Mobile Multimedia reviewer
Peer Review Antagonist Clueless
The current version of the paper, from the reviewer’s point of view, stands more for the overview/survey report than a research paper. Therefore, it i...
- Comment from Proceedings of the 15th International Congre... reviewer
Peer Review Champion Constructive
Methodology to achieve these goals is not easy to design, however authors have chosen a smart trial plots where there was a great geological variabili...
- Comment from Catena reviewer
Peer Review Antagonist Mean-spirited
The quality of the writing is very poor, barely at the level of a student term paper at a decent university. The authors must learn to write in Stand...
- Comment from Sadhana reviewer
Peer Review Champion Positive
- Section 3.3.1, lines 310-314: Regarding the UOW, it can also be used to produce mortars (https://doi.org/10.1590/0366-69132019653752562 / https://do...
- Comment from Case Studies in Construction Materials reviewer
Peer Review Antagonist Mean-spirited
The comments of the Editor-in-Chief about your paper were: This paper does not meet the scientific level required by this journal.
- Comment from Cement and Concrete Research reviewer
Peer Review Champion Helpful
We appreciate the careful work the authors put into these research studies. Most consistently, the reviewers note that the data collection and analysi...
- Comment from ACM CompEd 2023 Conference reviewer
Peer Review Champion Positive
Dear author, first of all, I wish to thank you very much for the very comprehensive revision you provided. I'm especially impressed by the careful doc...
- Comment from International Journal of Fatigue reviewer
Peer Review Antagonist Mean-spirited
For improvement of the introduction and characterization part, related references could be cited: • Journal of Materials Science and Technology. 2016;...
- Comment from Composite Part B reviewer
Peer Review Antagonist Mean-spirited
Although this study is considered a pilot trial, the small number of patients 12 divided into 4 groups is a serious flaw in methodology. The interpret...
- Comment from F1000 Research reviewer
Peer Review Champion Thought-provoking
This manuscript is a herculean effort and enjoyable read. I learned lots, (and I think the paper will be a good resource for anybody interested in the...
- Comment from F1000 Research reviewer