Reviewer: " The EMA aspect of this work is well handled and the statistical analyses are sophisticated and thorough. However, I find this a ‘smart-looking’ house built on a weak and shifty foundation."

(via shitmyreviewersay)

Review: "The implications studied in the essay are mainly (i) autobiographical, (ii) psychological and (iii) historical. I am not convinced that the first group makes convincing reading. Miss Dickinson’s little life in Amherst is just as interesting to us as the new dress bought by Kim Kardashian."

Reviewer: "It is sad to see so much enthusiasm and effort go into analyzing a dataset that is just not big enough."

(Via SkepticalScience)

Reviewer: "Reject – More holes than my grandad’s string vest!"

(Via SkepticalScience)

Reviewer: "The writing and data presentation are so bad that I had to leave work and go home early and then spend time to wonder what life is about."

(Via SkepticalScience)

Reviewer: "Preliminary and intriguing results that should be published elsewhere."

(Via SkepticalScience)

Reviewer: "It is sad to see so much enthusiasm and effort go into analyzing a dataset that is just not big enough."

(Via SkepticalScience)

Reviewer: "This paper is desperate. Please reject it completely and then block the author’s email ID so they can’t use the online system in future."

(Via SkepticalScience)

Reviewer: "This paper would benefit from more citations."

*Attaches list of 47 self-citations*

Subtle as a brick through a window.

(Via r/AskAcademia)

Rev: "Done! I don't wish to think about constipation and faecal flora during my holidays! But once a referee, always a referee; we are good boy scouts in the research wilderness. Even under the sun near a wonderful beach."

Reviewing papers poolside. This is commitment.

(Source: Skeptical Science)

Rare reviewer sighting:

"Very much enjoyed reading this one, and do not have any significant comments. Wish I had thought of this one."

A positive review? In THIS economy?

Cherish this moment, authors. Frame it.

(Source: Skeptical Science)

Peer review:

"This paper is desperate. Please reject it completely and then block the author's email ID so they can't use the online system in future."

Plot twist:
It was from Reviewer 2.
Of course it was from Reviewer 2.

(Source: Skeptical Science)

Reviewer: [gives detailed, constructive feedback]

They're reviewing a completely different paper. Wrong title, wrong theory, wrong methods.

"Thank you reviewer, we have implemented all changes and are now a different study entirely."

(Via r/AskAcademia)

Reviewer feedback: "Manuscript would be much better if they had a general theorem rather than only specific examples."

Authors' revision response: "Thanks for the thoughtful comment. Section 4 presents a general theorem and Section 5 specific examples."

(Via r/AskAcademia)

Actual peer review comment:

"Please remove the testicle joke from your title."

Plot twist: There was no joke. Just materials scientists being painfully literal about "hairy balls."

The paper kept its title.

(Via r/AskAcademia)

Reviewer: "Reading this made me very upset."

Oh no. Um... should I change something specific, or...?

(Via r/AskAcademia)

Academic review of the day:

"Fix the typos - there are several superscripted commas in text"

Those were apostrophes. In Saxon genitives. Like "samples' surfaces."

(Via r/AskAcademia)

Actual peer review comment:

"Why are you doing this research? This has no future."

Sir, this is peer review, not therapy.

(Via r/AskAcademia)