1.The writing and data presentation are so bad that I had to leave work and go home early and then spend time to wonder what life is about. I would suggest that we set up a fund that pays for the red wine reviewers may need to digest manuscripts like this one. Please reject it completely and then block the author’s email ID so they can’t use the online system in future.
2.The writing and data presentation are so bad that I had to leave work and go home early and then spend time to wonder what life is about.
3.Reject – More holes than my grandad’s string vest!
4.The biggest problem with this manuscript, which has nearly sucked the will to live out of me, is the terrible writing style.
5.The journal editor stated that our manuscript was rejected. We were shocked that the reviewer’s comments read “fuck you” (handwritten on a torn strip of paper scotch-taped to the editor’s letter to us)
6.Hopeless – Seems like they have been asleep and are not up on recent work on metagenomics.
7.A weak paper, poor experimental design, comparison of sequences using different primers, no statistical analysis possible, carelessly written, poorly thought through.
8. I agreed to review this Ms whilst answering e-mails in the golden glow of a balmy evening on the terrace of our holiday hotel on Lake Como. Back in the harsh light of reality in Belfast I realize that it’s just on the limit of my comfort zone and that it would probably have been better not to have volunteered.
9.The presentation is of a standard that I would reject from an undergraduate student.
10.The lack of negative controls. . . . results in the authors being lost in the funhouse. Unfortunately, I do not think they even realize this.
11.I am generally very happy to provide extensive suggestions and comments on manuscripts, but this submission was an absolute waste of my time.
12.I found the paper a challenge to evaluate, expecting some profound methodological or theoretical insight. Yet none appeared to be forthcoming.
13.The introduction, general approach and data analyses are somewhat anachronistic–this study would have been really interesting 10-15 years ago, but now it seems quite out of date.
14.The biggest problem with this manuscript, which has nearly sucked the will to live out of me, is the terrible writing style.
15.Hopeless - Seems like they have been asleep and are not up on recent work on metagenomics.
16."Done! Difficult task, I don’t wish to think about constipation and faecal flora during my holidays! But, once a referee, always and anywhere a referee; we are good boy scouts in the research wilderness. Even under the sun and near a wonderful beach."
17. "This paper is awfully written. There is no adequate objective and no reasonable conclusion. The literature is quoted at random and not in the context of argument. I have doubts about the methods and whether the effort of data gathering is sufficient to arrive at a useful conclusion."
18. "Season’s Greetings! I apologise for my slow response but a roast goose prevented me from answering emails for a few days."