Reviewer Roulette

Comment

Peer Review Antagonist Clueless Chemical Engineering

Here he authors' response to my comments (I am a reviewer, Q), the antagonists are the authors (Responses). Enjoy!
"Ignorant reviewers,
I respond once again to your ignorant questions.
Q2. What is the “porous metal material”? Is it metal?..
Resp.: These review results are to be published online, I hope you don't reveal your ignorance and foolishness too. You need to be worthy of your reviewer's identity. Why don't you ask stupid questions anymore?
Q3. ...studied the near limit detonation. What limits?
Resp.: I believe these professional readers will not be as ignorant as you are.
Q5. What does a tulip or finger flame have to do with detonation decay or pressure?
Resp.: I hope you don't reveal your ignorance and foolishness too.
Q10. How do the authors define the “good” thermal conductivity?
Resp.: I hope you understand the content of the text before asking questions.
Q20. What is the “the residence time” on Figure 5?
Resp.: I don't know how to answer your ignorant question.

- Comment from Processes (ISSN 2227-9717) reviewer

Context by Author

Me - reviewer, protagonist.
Authors - antagonists