1. transcript
  2. The reviews are in

The reviews are in

By apalazzo on June 23, 2007.

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
lab life

More like this

The Worst Parts of Scientific Life
The lack of posts in the past 3 days was caused by our departmental retreat, that takes place on the cape (i.e. Cape Cod) in March ... we usually aim to have the retreat during a blizzard, however this year we only had mild rain. All the talking and drinking with my peers in the Cell Biology…
Worst Parts of Science
From the archives, in honor of Labor Day. 1 - Being scooped. There is nothing worse than working your ass off for 4 years (much of it in the coldroom) when BANG! a paper comes out making all your work useless. 2 - Begging for money. When scientists are not working, eating, sleeping or at some…
Fixing peer review
I've frequently noted that one of the things most detested by quacks and promoters of pseudoscience is peer review. Creationists hate peer review. HIV/AIDS denialists hate it. Anti-vaccine cranks like those at Age of Autism hate it. Indeed, as blog bud Mark Hoofnagle Mark Hoofnagle, pointed out…
Peer review
Last week, I mentioned that Billy Dembski is all worked up over a paper which he claimed was a peer-reviewed rejection of the climate change. The publisher, the American Physical Science, attached a disclaimer to the piece, noting that it was in fact not peer reviewed. Dembski now defends his own…