The reviews are in

Yeah it's been a while since my last entry, but in my defence, my thinkpad died and I simultaneously got back the reviewers comments from my submitted manuscript.

Although my boss was a tad disappointed, I'm quite pleased. I have to say that writing this post is kinda strange, are my reviewers out there reading my daily diatribes? Should I censure myself?

And so ... all I will say about the comments is that I spent the last month collecting data to bolster the key findings of my paper - mostly control experiments, but it looks like the reviewers believe the main concept and did not ask for any of the things I thought they would ask. Instead, the main sticky point (for reviewer #2) is whether the process that I uncovered plays a significant role in mRNA export of endogenous genes. Yes that sentence is murky, but I don't want to give too much away. In any case, the reviewer suggested a simple and obvious experiment, except that the result (which I've done indirectly) turns out to be ... complicated. I'll have to think about how to approach this.

OK that's all I will say for now ...

Tags

More like this

Over at the Nature blogs, they're soliciting comments and opinions about open peer review:
One of the much-hyped benefits of social networking is that it provides a way to get personalized recommendations about businesses from a wider network. If I want to tell the world that the coffee place in my neighborhood has the best cappuccino this side of Seattle, I can do that (and it does)!
A long time ago, in a blog far far away, I ran a small poll about paper refereeing. The poll asked "What is your ratio of reviewed to submitted manuscripts?". The results were
I came across this Science letter to the editor about a "gradual peer review process" by the associate editor for Plant Signalling and Behavior, Co