Friday, September 20, 2013

Another rejection by PLoS ONE

I'm just a co-author on this, so I won't offer many details.  But two generally positive reviews and one negative review, by an idiot, and an editor who's not doing his job or knows the editorial policies of the journal: we get good results and the reviewers don't quibble with the soundness of the methodology.  The method is expensive so we couldn't really do a large systematic study, which 2 of the reviewers didn't like and one considered a deal-breaker. To me it gives off the faint odor of "impact".  

The method itself is not system-specific.  If it works for one system, why not publish it let other people apply it to other systems to see how it works there?  

The appeals process is grueling, slow, and arbitrary so I don't think we'll bother.  +PeerJ  is looking better and better.

No comments: