| << | >> | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
 previous |
next  |
| | |
| professor hardass | 5:23pm 8/17/2006  |
|
Reviewing articles submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journal is an important step of career development for a professional scientist, reflecting his recognition as an expert in his field. It's something i've welcomed as i've made the transition from postdoc to faculty, and i now serve as a reviewer for five or six different journals. That said, reviewing *bad* papers is a torture like no other. Being forced to read ten or twenty pages of poorly written text, sometimes with as many as twenty associated figures, and then write an intelligent, comprehensive summary of the validity of the work and its significance without devolving into a series of four-letter words ... that's a true challenge. Somehow between 2001 and now i've become a hardass. Again ... who knew. | |
| last edited 5:23pm 8/17/2006 | back to top |
| | |
| previous |
next |