Since we have been covering peer review developments recently (e.g. here) we couldn’t resist posting a link to this (an oldy but goody): Mother Goose & the scientific peer review process (from the Science Creative Quarterly). Extract:
Hey diddle diddle, the cat and the fiddle.
The cow jumped over the moon.
The little dog laughed, to see such a sight.
And the dish ran away with the spoon.
The reviewers felt that not enough data was presented to support your claims. For example – how many times did your group observe the cow jumping over the moon? From the text and supporting figures, it would appear that you base this conclusion on one data point as no calculations regarding standard deviations were presented. As an analytical journal of high repute, the reviewers felt that this is simply not acceptable. In addition, several of the reviewers felt that the word ‘diddle’ was inappropriate, and should have been replaced by the more scientifically correct, ‘Hey fornicate fornicate.“ Because of these, and other problems, we are sorry to inform you that your manuscript has not been accepted for publication.
Technorati Tags: Peer review