看到这些论文评审意见，我哭笑不得......
丁香园
2010 年 Environmental Microbiology 杂志刊登了一部分杂志的审稿意见，以下是我摘出的 10 个史上最狠的评审意见。
让大家在学术研究严肃、认真的前提下，体会一下审稿人的幽默与诙谐，有的审稿意见甚至让人啼笑皆非。
1. This paper is desperate. Please reject it completely and then block the author’s email ID so they can’t use the online system in future.
这文章太不给力了… 万万不可发表。此外，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.
这小子的写作水平和数据呈现能力也是无敌了，哥还是提前下班回家，花时间思考下人活着是为了虾米......
3. Reject – More holes than my grandad’s string vest!
拒稿，必须的。本文的漏洞比我爷爷网眼背心上的洞还多！
4. I would suggest that EM set up a fund that pays for the red wine reviewers may need to digest manuscripts like this one.
我建议贵刊（环境微生物学杂志）成立基金，以便支付审稿人审阅时可能需要的红酒，哥实在是上火呀。
5. The biggest problem with this manuscript, which has nearly sucked the will to live out of me, is the terrible writing style.
这位兄弟的写作格式实在太恐怖，简直摧残了哥求生的信念，真是要把哥往死里整。
6. Hopeless – Seems like they have been asleep and are not up on recent work on metagenomics.
哥真的是要绝望了。TM 这作者要么睡着了，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.
这篇文章弱爆了。实验设计很挫，使用不同的引物序列比较；统计分析不置可否；写作粗犷；思考浅薄。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，如果此时哥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，咱能不提这事，行吗？
9. The presentation is of a standard that I would reject from an undergraduate student.
哥从本科开始就不看这种文章。
10. The lack of negative controls. . . . results in the authors being lost in the funhouse. Unfortunately, I do not think they even realize this.
没有阴性对照实验！你小子是在游乐场里迷失了嘛？！要命的是，看你们根本就没意识到。
写在最后
好好写论文，看论文的人也很痛苦呢。
<link />
