A common response to this thread is "the review process must not have looked closely enough". This tweet[1] contains screenshots of the review process of the d

A common response to this thread is "the review process must not have looked closely enough". This tweet[1] contains screenshots of the review process of the dog park paper, and claims they received constructive feedback. As originally written, the journal wouldn't publish it. https://twitter.com/RealPeerReview/status/1047813753180438528 https://twitter.com/RealPeerReview/status/104781375318043852...