Manoj,
while reviewer-bashing is my favorite pastime too (recent gem: "studying
transcription factors will not advance our understanding of mechanistic
enzymology"), you should remember that they are unpaid individuals who
volunteer their time to help you to improve your paper (or so the idea
goes). It is also important to recognize that the editor accepts the
paper, not the reviewer (who acts in advisory capacity).
A much better alternative to your draconian list was already mentioned -
"I'll give you my data if you tell me who you are". Works for me.
Cheers,
Ed.
On Fri, 2012-04-20 at 11:07 -0400, Manoj Tiwari wrote:
> 1) The reviewer should be given at most 24-48 hours of time to give
> comments after receiving the data.
>
> 2) (S)he should declare to the editor that the paper is going to be
> accepted if everything with the data/model is okay. The reviewer
> should also send comments to author on what does (s)he intend to
> examine in the structure.
>
> 3) After going through the model/data, the reviewer's comment should
> be exclusively based on the structure or its correlation with the
> experimental data.
>
> 4) If reviewer finds any mistake which can not be corrected or which
> changes the theme of the paper and the reviewer rejects the paper, the
> responsibility should lie on author. But certainly the editor or a
> team decided by editor should ensure that when the paper is rejected
> at this stage, the reason for rejection is valid and the mistakes can
> not be rectified. Editor should also ensure that authors are given
> sufficient opportunity to correct the mistake if possible.
>
>
--
I don't know why the sacrifice thing didn't work.
Science behind it seemed so solid.
Julian, King of Lemurs
