I’ve noticed a peculiar trend among some reviewers: they seem to have a knack for crafting comments that could pass as a generic template for any manuscript. It’s as if they’ve mastered the art of writing feedback so vague it could be applied to any paper, leaving authors to decipher the cryptic messages and make revisions that might as well be written in the stars. Here’s a prime example of such an ’evergreen’ comment:
Comments to the Author The manuscript presents a XX method for XX. The topic is relevant and has potential applications. However, there are some issues to be addressed. Here are the comments:
- The authors shall improve the clarity and cohesion of the manuscript. There are quite a few grammatical errors and misleading phrasing that hinder the reader’s understanding. I recommend thorough proofreading and editing by a native English speaker or a professional editor to improve the overall readability.
- Several technical terms are misused or poorly explained. This makes it challenging for readers, especially those unfamiliar with the topic, to grasp the underlying concepts. A more precise use of terminology and better definitions would enhance comprehension.
- It is crucial to highlight what distinguishes this approach from previous works and to clearly articulate the specific contributions to the existing body of knowledge. In addition, it would be better to include a comparative analysis with other established techniques would strengthen the argument for its effectiveness.
The reviewer could just change the ‘method’ to any term in any article, and the author is left to revise their paper as if it’s a never-ending game of academic whack-a-mole.
If specific details were added to the above content, it would be completely different.
For example:
- Directly point out where the grammatical errors are.
- Identify the misused technical terms.
- Provide more specific issues in the context of the field.
Let’s work together to improve the environment.