There is much excitement on NN today because we’ll finally be getting MT4 as a blogging platform. I’ve just had a great idea for a post, so we’ll see if I can get it ready in time.

There has been a discussion on an email list that I lurk in about manuscript reviews and referees. One thing it brought up in my mind is that editors should be responsible for their reviewers, and they should weed out the bad reviews. But we do get these reviews, and this (and other experiences: rejection without review because you haven’t done things the editor’s way) suggests to me that, to generalize slightly, editors are a bunc

About rpg

Scientist, poet, gadfly
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to On Editors [THINK UP PITHIER TITLE LATER]

  1. Frank Norman says:

    Has this post been censored?? 😉

  2. Bob O'Hara says:

    Damn, that joke didn’t work.

  3. Richard P. Grant says:

    for small values of ‘today’, huh?

  4. Bob O'Hara says:

    yeah, I think they must be either paleaontologists or geologists.

  5. Richard P. Grant says:

    Bloody Henry.

  6. Eva Amsen says:

    Or historians/anthropologists: “In the past people used moveable type to print books, but today they use Moveable Type.”

  7. Richard P. Grant says:

    I don’t believe in MT4. I think it’s a myth.

  8. Bob O'Hara says:

    Well, Henry doesn’t. I think he uses a quill from a Sinosauropteryx.

  9. Henry Gee says:

    A myth is a female moth.

  10. Richard P. Grant says:

    Hey, that’s my joke!

  11. Alejandro Correa says:

    Go very fast …

  12. Mike Fowler says:

    What is so meaty about 4 anyway?

  13. Bob O'Hara says:

    It should be empty.

Comments are closed.