I do not know if that's really cynical: I've had the case of a referee
recommending manuscript rejection because the title of the manuscript
was not appropriate. The editor followed the advice of the referee. A
proper refereeing job would have been to suggest that the authors change
the title of the manuscript, not suggesting to the editor that the
manuscript should be rejected!
So I think we can have different opinions on this. Sometimes referees do
a good job in evaluating manuscripts, sometimes they do not.
Fred.
Eleanor Dodson wrote:
Oh cynic!
Eleanor
On 10/27/2010 09:01 PM, Simon Kolstoe wrote:
Surely the "best" model is the one that the referees for your paper are
happy with?
I have found referees to impose seemingly random and arbitrary standards
that sometime require a lot of effort to comply with but result in
little to no impact on the biology being described. Mind you discussions
on this email list can be a useful resource for telling referee's why
you don't think you should comply with their "rule of thumb".
Simon
