I guess they are taking a page off reading mean tweets about yourself
Does anyone have any to share?
What are your worst review?
-
In all seriousness, I once had a reviewer criticize an article becomes it "seemed like part of the conservative sociology project." (I'll have to check for the exact quote later but that's pretty close). (S)he then criticized me for using the verb "complain" for describing a time when an interviewee complained about something to me.
-
As long as you talk in line with the predominate discourse, e.g. justice oppression inequalities anthrocentrism, they wouldn't show you personal attack at least.
I feel you bruh. One, using only bivariate correlations, I showed that 1) climate change is a conspiracy to create a one-world government 2) black people are genetically inferior to whites 3) white Christians are the most oppressed people on the planet and 4) Obama is a Kenyon muslim terrorist trying to take your guns.
The SJW reviewers suggest "revise with major revisions". I'm tired of the lack of ideological diversity in sociology that keeps my papers out of AJS and ASR. -
To a French journal for an invited publication (I'm a native English speaker, and the manuscript was in English):
I have read the paper and I'm not sure if I should even bother to send in a full referee report. The text has too many weaknesses. Let me list just five.
1. The paper reads like an inadequate translation, most probably of a very rich and heavily stylized French original. At times the text is difficult to understand (read 4 pages and you will notice).
Ultimately though, the reviewer recommended a "resubmit" stating that "The author certainly has a great deal of potential. It will only take some time and effort to bring it out."
I must have been channeling Bourdieu.
-
From a grant proposal review:
"[The author's previous work] does nothing to enhance my confidence in the quality of the planned data analysis and in the likely significance and value of its findings. That article used indicators of rather questionable conceptual validity, which does not instill much confidence that the present analysis would be of acceptable quality... [the author] certainly has the necessary academic credentials, but her scholarly output so far has not been impressive. She has published several articles, but none in the kind of leading journals in which an assistant professor should try to place her work. So one wonders about a preference for quantity over 'quality'."
Funnily enough, the critiqued article won an article award later that year.