15 years ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm a postdoc in the biological sciences. I can't decide if I work too much or not enough. I'm married to Dr. Hyde, a fabulous scientist himself, and we've finally had a child after a long time trying. The title and pseudonym? One name at work, another at home.
Boobies! Boobies!
About Me
- Dr. Jekyll and Mrs. Hyde
- Email: drjekyllmrshyde, with the all-purpose gmail suffix
OWLs (Outstanding Web Logs)
-
-
-
7 years ago
-
14 years ago
-
-
15 years ago
-
-
-
12 years ago
-
-
11 years ago
-
9 months ago
-
17 years ago
-
15 years ago
-
-
11 years ago
-
-
-
14 years ago
-
3 weeks ago
-
14 years ago
-
11 years ago
13 comments:
um no. That's like the tag on the mattress that tells you not to tear it off.
Yes (because I'm one of those dweebs who has to follow every rule to the letter).
I didn't before, but this semester I am teaching an ethics class so I have been deleting them. :)
Interesting, I've never reviewed for a journal that asks for this. If told to do it, however, I would not. In the event that I have to re-review something, I want to be able to compare and contrast to the former manuscript to make sure that they did the things I asked.
I would, however, follow the spirit of the law, in that I would not blab the contents of the manuscript to others or use it for my own personal gain. Bwa-ha-ha.
I've had the re-review thing happen a few times that Candid mentioned. A few times, an author submitted the *same exact manuscript* after it had been reviewed and slammed by myself and others to a different journal where I was then asked to review. I sent the editor my review of the previous rejected submission along with the pdf showing that NONE of the reviewer comments from the previous rejection were taken seriously. I often get asked to re-review papers that were "revise/resubmit" so it's helpful to have the original manuscript to compare with the newest version.
jc
Well, I'm glad there's a consensus! Erm. Dr Hussy, v funny, wonder how long after the class is over this halo effect persists!
jc, I get the point about comparing MS's, but in theory one should evaluate the MS anew if it comes up at a new journal, no?
Candid, I assume you're only supposed to trash it after the re-review at the original journal, not sure if you were talking about that or about what jc said. I'm not 100% sure *what* the "spirit" of the law is here, anyhow, since you're already agreeing not to blab about the MS etc. Perhaps that is the key question.
Genomic--I never tear that tag off though, so where does that leave me???
But the MS isn't "anew"...it's the same shit submitted to a different journal. So it's been rejected at JournalA by two or three reviewers (one of which is me). The author sends the unrevised same exact piece of shit to JournalB and I get asked as a reviewer there. Because I kept the pdf from the review for JournalA, I could compare it to the submission for JournalB and point out to the EditorB that 1) I already reviewed this same exact manuscript for JournalA where it was rejected and 2) here were my reviewer comments to EditorA which were completely ignored when the author decided to submit the manuscript without changes to JournalB.
jc
I keep the pdfs and the reviews for the same reasons that CE and jc mentioned.
Ok, that makes sense. So why do you think some journals request the destruction? Precaution against accidentally sharing it?
I keep a folder for each review that contains the original PDF, my review and any additional itterations. I find it helpful for the reasons mentioned already, but I agree with CE, in that until it is published it stays entirely in that folder and not discussed with others.
Jekyll it leaves you mattress handle the next time you move. I do hide reviews in a password protected folder to maintain the confidentiality of papers that my boss has asked me to have a go at before he reviews them.
I do delete. Regarding the re-review, all of the journals I have reviewed for either provide the original version and the author's response to the previous review along with the revised manuscript, OR, will provide the original to me upon request.
Beyond that, if the paper is worthwhile it will probably be published and I can get the final (best?) version eventually. If they are not worthwhile then I don't want them clogging up space on my machine.
Post a Comment