Not because your work is bad, but because you have such a strong grasp of the material, and such a compelling way of explaining it, that in order for someone to muddle through his esoteric hogwash, your brilliant prose and unimpeachable methodology is a prerequisite.
@m3moellering *cough* Errrrrr no, I hate to brag but I'm *infamous* for being the worst technical/academic prose writer you'd ever read; I'm so terrible that it's impossible to get any blind peer review of my work because people in my field recognize the awful writing before they even get out of the introduction. (And if the writing doesn't give it away, the amazing lack of copy editing (grammar/typos) will do it, even though I legitimately did try.)
The only peer review comment that seared me to the bone - and now imprinted in my DNA - was from a "recommend against [publishing]", and it was, and I quote, "Your science is as bad as your writing." Way harsh, Tai. Could have just said the data was suspect and the conclusions not supported by evidence. Geez.
The only peer review comment that seared me to the bone - and now imprinted in my DNA - was from a "recommend against [publishing]", and it was, and I quote, "Your science is as bad as your writing." Way harsh, Tai. Could have just said the data was suspect and the conclusions not supported by evidence. Geez.
Luckily I have other skills!!
@BennyTheIcepick Yes.