|
|
|
|
|
|
by bumby
1417 days ago
|
|
|
I can't help but think this is sometimes an excuse to not read the actual article. If one doesn't have the time to read it, that's understandable. But the best response would be to recuse yourself from the review rather than avoiding reading it. If it's unclear after reading it, it's fine to reject it but I think we owe it to the authors to at least read it in its entirety. It's not uncommon to have to explain this to a junior researcher when they are confronted by review comments that were clearly already answered in text and the reviewer just didn't read it.[1] It does a disservice to the field and, IMO, is unprofessional. [1] Before anyone jumps to conclusions like "Those questions should have been clear from the figures", sometime they are questions that are not suitable for being answered in figures. Examples being, "The research should have explained why these particular ML models were used" when the paragraphs directly state things like "These ML methods were chosen because..." |
|
|
Also I emphasized that this is more true in biology. When there’s no math or software, there’s often nothing to gain from the text of the results. The evidence is supposed to be in the figures.