4 ms·
I'm torn on this. I've spent nearly the last 20 years in some form or another in academic/research computing. On the one hand, attitudes like the third reviewe
by davidmr 12y ago
I'm torn on this. I've spent nearly the last 20 years in some form or another in academic/research computing.
On the one hand, attitudes like the third reviewer's are a primary reason for the state of HPC today, where new advances in research are just as often finding a way to run 30 year old code on a modern supercomputer as they are writing new software to take advantage of the fantastic array of new hardware. The number of times you hear "sorry, we can't change that. Livermore wrote that 15 years ago, and nobody knows how to change it anymore" is enough to drive a rational person over the edge.
On the other hand, the state of academic peer review being what it is, I don't fault the reviewer for suggesting the paper be resubmitted using more common methodology. A conscientious reviewer has a lot of papers to review, and spends a good amount of time on the ones that aren't written by crackpots. While the author was of course fully in their rights (and may even have advanced the field) to use their own software written in a relatively uncommon language, for the results and methodology to be understood, that's asking a lot of a reviewer.
I'm genuinely unsure as to how I would have responded to the review request. I have much sympathy for both people involved.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- Blahah 12y agoThe correct response from the reviewer would have been "I am not capable of reviewing code written in Julia, therefore I must decline this review request" rather than "I am not capable of reviewing code written in Julia, therefore I must recommend rejecting the paper".
- blumkvist 12y agoAre you some sort of supreme authority on such matters?
- rjurney 12y agoNo, but he does sound right. Rejecting a paper because of a made up standard based on brand preference is stupid.
- blumkvist 12y agoI just find it very, let's say funny, that he (or she!) simply declares what the correct procedure is. One must wonder, if he/she is some sort of an arbiter in such cases. Also, it was rejected, with an invitation to resubmit, which makes quite a bit of difference. Especially when you take into consideration that the reviewers expressed why they can't publish it in the rejection.
- Obi_Juan_Kenobi 12y agoWhere does it say that this is the issue that caused the rejection? It sounds like a minor comment among other helpful comments, as the author stated. I got the strong impression that the editorial decision was based on other factors, with these comments only being minor ones.
- scott_s 12y agoYou are being downvoted because the charitable interpretation of the parent comment is: "Based on my experience and understanding, I think the best response from the reviewer would have been ...".
- protomyth 12y agoBut if the paper is not about the code and the code was just supplemental (as the article states), why should the language of the code have any relevance? If the author had declined to submit code, the author's paper might have sailed through just fine.
- Obi_Juan_Kenobi 12y agoHave you submitted to academic journals before? Reviewer comments are not a list of absolute requirements; they're thoughts and suggestions that help both the authors and editors improve the manuscript. They will include a recommendation for publishing, and they can make that recommendation contingent on particular issues, but that's somewhat unusual. It's not completely clear what's happening in this case, but I'm strongly inclined to think this was a 'minor comment' from a reviewer. The three reviews were helpful and constructive, but these two comments infuriated me. I think the author is simply taking exception that these comments are prevalent attitudes, not that they were significantly contributing to the editorial decision. It's very common to address reviewer comments without actually changing anything. Basically, you say you disagree for reasons X, Y, and Z. The editor can disagree, ask for further clarification from the reviewer, or simply accept the argument. Nothing is set in stone. As for the implication that there are other reviewers waiting in the wings with suitable experience, good luck.
- Blahah 12y agoYes, I have some publications, and am familiar with the process. I was attacking a theoretical review to make a point I wanted to make. The blog post doesn't say the reviewer recommended rejection on the basis of implementation in Julia, or that the editor's decision cited the language choice. My point was that if those things were true (which is not clear from the post), that would be bad. I make that point because in my experience, it's not uncommon for reviewers to take similarly unreasonable positions.
- IndianAstronaut 12y ago>Reviewer comments are not a list of absolute requirements; Where are you publishing? I have had reviewers block if certain experiments were not done or things were not done a certain way.