I’ve been getting a lot of rejections & (obvi) thinking about shitty reviews. What’s a shitty review? Common elements: broad statements abt the paper w/out details of why. No respect for RQ or approach. Making the review abt the author, not the paper. Being an assflap.

Some examples of shitty reviews:
- I don’t like it. Write this other paper instead
- Let me ramble on how the author sucks
- The worst thing ever! No, I will NOT say why
- Meh. “redo the front”
- “Great but not crazy about the methods”
- UNPUBLISHABLE IN ANY FORM

Here’s the thing about writing a shitty review – you are wasting the author & journal time. But you are also wasting YOUR time. BC you just read a whole (ahem, maybe) paper and wrote 500+ words and *none of it will help the paper get better.* That’s a total waste of your time!

Can we instead write non-shitty reviews? My guidelines:
- I am clear & specific about what is wrong & why w examples
- I avoid nasty comments abt the paper or author
- If I want a reorg, I outline how & why
- If an author found out I was the reviewer, I wouldn’t be ashamed

Anyway, I review a lot. I see a lot of y'all's reviews from that. I get a lot of reviews.

Some of you are doing great. Some of you need to think about why we do this part of our jobs. And some of y'all are assflaps.