The peer review process is a fundamental aspect of academic publishing, ensuring quality, rigor, and credibility. However, occasionally, amidst the constructive criticism and insightful suggestions, authors encounter reviewer feedback that is so peculiar, vague, or contradictory that it becomes unintentionally humorous. Presented here are some authentic (and only slightly edited) examples of such reviewer comments, which many researchers may find all too familiar.
- “The manuscript is excellent. I suggest rejection.”
A classic case of “I love it, but… no.” Was this a compliment or just a typo? - “The English is poor. Also, I don’t like the font.”
When grammar critiques turn into a full-blown graphic design review. - “This topic is over-researched. Add 20 more references.”
Ah yes, the paradox of excessive coverage requiring even more citations. - “Please explain the results more clearly. Or just change them.”
Not quite sure if that’s a suggestion for clarity or a rewrite of reality. - “This study adds nothing to the field. Except maybe confusion.”
Harsh, honest, and… accidentally poetic? - “Figures are blurry. Please submit a higher-resolution microscope.”
When your resolution isn’t high-def enough for their microscopic standards. - “The paper is too short. Also, it’s too long.”
Schrödinger’s manuscript: both verbose and underdeveloped. - “The conclusions are speculative. Please be more conclusive.”
Thank you for your specific lack of specificity. - “The methods are unclear. I recommend a different approach. Like not doing the study.”
Nothing like invalidating the entire premise in one line. - “Why didn’t the authors study something more interesting?”
We’ll try to be more entertaining next time!
While it is understandable to feel frustrated, it is important to recognize that most reviewers genuinely aim to enhance the quality of the work. Nevertheless, during the demanding period of revisions, a touch of humor can be beneficial. If you have ever found yourself perplexed, amused, or simply fatigued by reviewer comments, rest assured that you are not alone. To reviewers who may be reading this, your contributions are appreciated; however, perhaps consider moderating critiques on font choices.