Nancy Rothwell
I had some bad news on the research publication front, my research group had a great paper rejected by completely unreasonable referees – they were obviously biased – or at least we think so. More work to do!
To order, visit:
The American Meteorological Society (preferred)
The University of Chicago Press
Also available at Amazon.com
David M. Schultz is a Professor of Synoptic Meteorology at the Centre for Atmospheric Science, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, and the Centre for Crisis Studies and Mitigation, The University of Manchester. He served as Chief Editor for Monthly Weather Review from 2008 to 2022. In 2014 and 2017, he received the University of Manchester Teaching Excellence Award, the only academic to have twice done so. He has published over 190 peer-reviewed journal articles.
[Read more]
Any review process that afforded university presidents (or any other authority figure) special treatment would lose immediately all professional credibility as a result. Too bad for her and her group, but she evidently does have more work to do. The review process is usually a crap shoot, and sometimes it comes up craps! I sometimes wonder what editors are thinking with respect to the people they choose as reviewers … but the process mostly works, and produces better papers than the authors first submitted.
A recommendation to authors of rejected manuscripts: do not attack the messengers (i.e., reviewers and editors). Presumably, there was something you could have done differently in your paper to enhance its chances of being accepted. Spend your time thinking about how to make your papers better.
One of those cases where we are either told too little, or too much – get a grip Nancy!