PI, to another PI (in a public space; this was not eavesdropping):
"Look at this terrible abstract that Nature X sent me. They want me to review the paper. I said no. I don't want to spend my time reading any paper this stupid.
[The abstract did sound soul-crushingly boring.--Jekyll]
"Also, my policy from here on out is that I only have to review as many papers per year as I send out for review. That's what my fair burden is. So this year I will only review two or three papers total, since that's how many reviews my lab will likely solicit this year. And this [indignant gesture towards computer] certainly won't be one of them."
15 years ago
6 comments:
"I only have to review as many papers per year as I send out for review"
Interesting idea...although there are probably many more people who submit papers to Nature X than who review Nature X papers, so who will review all those extra papers???
I think he was willing to review papers from any journal, just that their total numbers couldn't exceed the total number of reviews his lab solicited.
It should be the number of submissions (including resubmissions but excluding non-sent-out rejections) times the number of reviewers per paper.
That's a good point, jsinger--but somehow I don't see myself pointing it out to him.....
jsinger is right, that's exactly the right number.
i'm pretty sure two of the PIs i've worked with reviewed way more than that, which is probably why they never wanted to work on publishing any of their own. they were too busy with "community service" (aka knowing what everyone else was doing and wielding their power to decide who gets to publish what).
My favorite is, "They take 4 weeks to get back to me, so I figure that's how long I can wait before I need to review the papers they send." Great.
Post a Comment