• Page restrictions apply
• Added by Michael J. Tarr, last edited by Michael J. Tarr on Jul 23, 2007  (view change)

This is an archive of the "best" nasty comments we or colleagues have received in paper or grant reviews

The point here is to illustrate that we should all be careful in how we communicate to others about their work: sometimes ad hominem comments sneak in unintentionally, other times one is truly apoplectic, other times we are just having a bad (hair) day. In all cases we should read what we write and decide whether we would wish to receive such a comment. If the answer is no, the comment should probably be tossed or be rewritten. I think you will see what I mean in the comments (real - collected from reviews received by colleagues or by us) below. If anyone takes offense because they recognize their comment(s) in the archive, I say tough luck - you wrote it, you live with it.

Top Ten

1. "the writing of the paper resembles more the blabberings of a not-too-witty TV game-show host than a contribution to a serious scientific outlet" bNasty Review Archive - TarrLab - Brown University Money Nastysexualchicks El 105 Biblioteket Litteratursok Nasty Sexual Chicksg z Sexual Sexual Sexual Nasty jNasty Review Archive - TarrLab - Brown University Money Nastysexualchicks El 105 Biblioteket Litteratursok Nasty Sexual Chicksa j d d Sexual Nasty Chicks Chicks