I have a sneaking suspicion that the fine, funny phrase "catching" dementia comes from one of my reviewers.
I've very much appreciated, I would say, the responses from half of my reviewers, the other half I just ignore because I don't think they've done a good job, same thing on conference papers: What is this?
It also made it a huge challenge to explain my own research because the theories, methods, and terminology are so different, and I couldn't expect my reviewers to share any knowledge about these.
It's a subconscious pattern that one of my reviewers pointed out, and that I can now see quite clearly.
And of course, the people reviewing you are (presumably) a very small percentage of your real-life friends, acquaintances, girlfriends, etc. Case in point: my reviewers seem to think I have #BabyBlues (my eyes are definitely brown -- I checked) and that I #OnlyWearFratTanks (I stopped wearing tanks in 1996, and every single one was plain white and worn exclusively as an undergarment).
One of my reviewers already reproached me (justly) in attempt to say too much in one paper.
Gosse himself wrote a public letter with a meagre defense of his scholarship and a few paragraphs explaining how hurtful had been this betrayal of friendship by "my Quarterly Reviewer".
My cynical reviewer mentality is being worn down by the promise of something so cool.
I cut my book reviewer teeth on romance novels before venturing into Young Adult territory and I can tell you that your futuristic revolutionaries, genetically modified cheerleaders and half-angel Mathletes could learn a thing or two from those raven-haired hoydens and scandalous Dukes.
Following is a brief summary of their reports that emphasizes the main points as seen from my perspective: Reviewer #1 is concerned that the outcome of the simulations was sensitive to the somewhat arbitrary simulation termination criterion.
