Slightly less snarkily, manuscript review culture varies a lot. If a person trained in GlamHoundery reviews for a real journal they often are slightly out of step in their demands. So an important editorial function is to enforce the culture of their journal. By saying “nah don’t do all that”.

I'm sure they are everywhere -- but I've never met one who admits to being a mechanism fascist to my face. I would relish the opportunity to engage. I infer, however, that they believe themselves to be members of an ancient and secret sect protecting truth from the shadows.

Right? Come away with me, my love 💞

Yup. Don't need to be an electrician to know that the switch turns on the lights.

Yes, hit and miss here too. Happily this last editor took a strong stance in our favor.

Good gravy. 4 years and ~250 citations later...j

This is the training innovation we have been lacking! :D

*this amazing

Yeah, to receive this review in an email saying "We'd like to move forward" stimulated an unhealthy surge of smugness

We get amazing combination a lot. I actually think much of it goes back to a deep misunderstanding: people believe you must have mechanism to show causality. And you don't. And there is no forum in which you can just-in-time train them on this foundational concept.

Hard agree 😫

And to make this more concrete, here is a re-review we just got. The editor overruled this negative reviewer, who here is *lecturing us on the ethos of the journal*.

I've never met anyone in real life who holds this position with whom I can have an actual discussion. Always anonymous peer review.

Watch K-POP Demon Hunters and find out 😈😜

Assuming I know what you mean by that -- one merit for all situations -- no way. Merit is like "good" and "bad," in that the first question is "With respect to what?" But to avoid being mealymouthed about this, the "every take on merit has flaws so there is no merit" position is flatly insane.

I do want to say that of course there's a tension between "no one-size-fits-all metric" and having a common language for evaluation of diverse researchers. To stir the pot, merit is real in my book, even if it's complicated. The bit of DM's bait I liked is connecting to how we evaluate ourselves.

Same! Except (and?) I don’t think there’s a generic way we “should” be publishing. We could have a long convo about the daylight (or not) between metrics, normative statements, and targets. Probably we’d end up agreeing there too.

I know, /s. But different take: you'll tend to prefer a metric that matches your publishing objectives. Such that *even when your score is bad, you agree.*

I get "make me feel better". We're human. But the reason some metrics feel better, for me, is that they better capture what I'm trying to do.