自己投的稿，含着泪也要读完这些奇葩毒舌的审稿意见
中英对照版
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.
这货的写作水平和展示的数据太流（sha）弊（bi）了，哥不得不提前下班，匆匆回家，然后花时间思考下人生。哥建议我们还是成立个基金，以买单审稿人审阅时可能需要的红酒，哥上火呀。请勿发表，并建议锁定该作者的电子邮件ID，避免此人日后继续投稿。
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.
写作水平和展示的数据无敌了，俺不得不提前下班，匆匆回家，然后花时间怀疑人生到底是为了虾米。
3.Reject – More holes than my grandad’s string vest!
拒发，必须的！本文的漏洞比我爷爷背心上的洞还多！
4.The biggest problem with this manuscript, which has nearly sucked the will to live out of me, is the terrible writing style.
这篇文章问题多多，写作格式尤其可怕，审得我都不想活了。
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)
期刊编辑毙了我们的文章，因为审稿人意见是“哔~~~”（在回复编辑的信上写了张便条）
6.Hopeless – Seems like they have been asleep and are not up on recent work on metagenomics.
此文令人绝望。显然作者要么睡着了，要么完全没跟上宏基因组学的前沿发展。
7.A weak paper, poor experimental design, comparison of sequences using different primers, no statistical analysis possible, carelessly written, poorly thought through.
文章很弱。实验设计很锉，使用不同的引物序列比较；统计分析不置可否；写作粗犷。彻头彻尾的悲剧呀。
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.
迷人的傍晚，金色的夕照，如果此时我人在科莫湖的假日酒店那铺洒着余辉的露台上，我会欣然同意审阅这篇文章。然而，在贝尔法斯特残酷的日光里，我想刚才我那么想是被酒店啥的爽到了，文章么，还是算了吧……
9.The presentation is of a standard that I would reject from an undergraduate student.
我从本科开始就不看这种操性的文章。
10.The lack of negative controls. . . . results in the authors being lost in the funhouse. Unfortunately, I do not think they even realize this.
阴性对照实验的缺乏导致作者在游乐场里完全迷失了，不幸的是，我看他们现在还没意识到。
11.I am generally very happy to provide extensive suggestions and comments on manuscripts, but this submission was an absolute waste of my time.
我平时还蛮喜欢给人家审稿提供意见的，但这篇绝对是浪费我的绳命。
12.I found the paper a challenge to evaluate, expecting some profound methodological or theoretical insight. Yet none appeared to be forthcoming.
我觉得这篇文章试图去挑战发现一些高大上的方法和理论，然并卵。
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.
十几年前这会是个挺有趣的研究，但现在……
14.The biggest problem with this manuscript, which has nearly sucked the will to live out of me, is the terrible writing style.
这篇文章问题太多了，特别是这个写作风格，简直摧残了哥身体里求生的意志。
15.Hopeless - Seems like they have been asleep and are not up on recent work on metagenomics.
简直没希望了他们....看来作者要么睡着了，要么完全没跟上宏基因组学的前沿发展。
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.'
搞定了！太不容易了。我才不想装着一脑子便秘和粪便菌落来度假。但是，一朝做了审稿人，永远都是审稿人，到哪儿都是审稿人。在科学研究的荒漠中，我们是勇敢的童子军。即使在洒满阳光的沙滩上也是。哼！
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.'
这篇论文写得太烂了。目的不明确，结论不合理。引文都是乱引的，跟正文的论证完全对不上号。我怀疑这样的实验方法，也怀疑他们收集的数据不足以得出有效结论。
18. 'Season’s Greetings! I apologise for my slow response but a roast goose prevented me from answering emails for a few days.'
节日快乐！回复慢了，真抱歉。有一只烤鹅妨碍我，让我几天都没顾得上回邮件。
中文八卦版
1. 我遇到的最奇葩理由，莫过于投一个期刊，副编辑找的审稿人审太久，三个多月出来的审稿人意见都是小修（改几个错别字那种小小修） ，当天修改完后返修，先是副编给了accept，然后主编最后又发信说拒稿了，理由是：审稿时间太久了，拖慢了杂志的平均审稿数据，于是主编决定退稿。
——by 互联网
2. 你的工作做的很好，数据也很严谨很能说明问题，我们本应该给你发表。但是，我们杂志以前找你们学校的老师给我们审稿给我们写意见等你们老师都不干，所以，我们才不要发表你们的论文呢！这是真实发生在我一基友的师兄身上的故事。
—— 学术状态帝。
3. 我的一位土耳其同事曾经往PRD投过一篇文章，当时有两个审稿人审他的稿子。最后审稿意见下来，其中一个说Introduction部分太短，另一个说Introduction太长……天知道最后这位土耳其哥们是如何同时说服这两位审稿人的。
——林春山
4. 隔壁湿兄的投稿故事到现在我还历历在眼，我觉得湿兄绝壁是一个科研能力很强的人，但是再强也抵不过审稿专家：
湿兄投了一篇影响因子4点多的期刊，4点多在化学领域根本也不算什么太高大上的期刊，而且湿兄的方向很对口，结果苦苦等了三个多月，终于回复了审稿意见：
审稿人一：
大体意思就是：idea很好，但是严重怀疑你的实验方法，因为我让我的爱徒拿去重复了两个多月都没重复出来。
湿兄一看就怒了，麻痹，你的爱徒做不出来就怀疑劳资的实验？怎么不怀疑你爱徒的手呢？
—— winni dong
5. Nature 某子刊，审稿人喷了一堆，最后一句说：反正这篇文章无论如何也是需要过的，我就给你过了吧。因为署名在最后一位的大老板比较猛。
—— 匿名用户
6. 说个高中同学遇到的吧。因为专业不一样，所以期刊我是记不住的。就用A和B来代替吧，A的影响因子比B高。B的影响因子，有点低（好像A是6分左右，B是3分的）。同学觉得，自己的文章差不多够A，但是绝对比B的等级高一些。另外，A和B杂志有关系。
同学博士第一篇论文，想投个不错的杂志A。然后过了不久，A杂志的反馈意见来了：大意就是写的可以，但是我们觉得还差点，你换个杂志试试？我这里正好有杂志B，你可以看看。然后给了一个链接。
一般这种情况，就算你不投B，你也会点开链接看看吧。于是我同学就点了。
然后，就显示了B杂志的投稿成功的页面。。。
直接投稿了。。。。
我同学：我屮艸芔茻。。。。
——水雷