如此奇葩的审稿意见，爱因斯坦也很绝望啊

论文投稿时，总会收到点奇葩审稿意见。爱因斯坦也被怼过：在完成引力波论文初稿后，美国《物理评论》期刊的审稿人认为文章的内容和结论存在严重问题，附上了 10 页审稿意见。大佬爱因斯坦一时火冒三丈，虽然最终接受了修改意见，并转投其他杂志，但至此不再给《物理评论》投递任何论文。

本文毒舌式脑补编译了《Environmental Microbiology》以往发布的各类奇葩审稿意见，我仿佛看到了审稿人不屑一顾的偷笑表情！快来看看吧。

评审 1.Whoever wrote this manuscript made a real effort to make the results section as incomprehensible as possible. The explanation of various plots and figures is often very minimalistic, as if the writer was running out of steam after plotting the figures, and just collapsed before adding more than minimal commentary or explanation.

为使结果部分尽可能地令人费解，写这篇稿子的人真的是付出了很大努力！对图表的解释，又完全是极简主义，多写两句会死啊？！

评审 2. This is a brilliant manuscript – however, the authors should split their work up, otherwise it is undigestible! That would be very unfortunate.

嗯，这稿子写得还不错。但是！你们把乱七八糟的东西瞎拼凑在一起，当我傻啊！

评审 3. The transcriptomic data must have been trafficked and have about the same probability as has the proverbial herd of monkeys running over a computer and thereby writing the New Testament. The research project has been poorly managed and the paper is full of overstatements. Sad.

这数据不是买来的，就是在电脑上瞎编的！研究计划是那么的不堪入目，文章里居然各种吹牛鬼扯，差点亮瞎我的 24K 黄金狗眼，作者脸皮厚得可以上天了！不要让我再看到你！看到你一次，我就拒你一次！

评审 4. Rev. 1: It was a pleasure to read this flawless and well-written manuscript.

Rev. 2: There are already many papers that address this question and most do not apply very stringent experimental procedures, so results are somewhat equivocal. The present manuscript is not different in this respect.

审稿人 1：这篇文章简直完美！

审稿人 2：楼上是三岁小孩，我可不是！不要以为文章写得好看就能骗过哥！你这文章不但没有创新性，一点价值都没有！

评审 5. I would like to write you a nice comment but my bored brain is unable to produce any cute observation. Please, send me science that will start fireworks in my brain!

我很想给你写个好的审稿意见，但我最近精神抑郁，实在缺少一双发现美的眼睛。告诉我该怎样重新振作起来，我就助你 Accept。

评审 6. I already reviewed this manuscript on a previous occasion. Nothing has changed, so my criticism and recommendations to the authors are exactly the same as those for the previous submission. They are mostly for your benefit, because this time I have even less reason to hope that the authors will find them useful . . .

没想到吧，哼哼，你新投的杂志，稿件还是送到本教授手上审了。你们居然一点都没改动！嗯，我的审稿意见和上次一样。我不希望你投第三本杂志时，还是一点都不改....

评审 7. An excellent story, perhaps slightly too long, therefore a little boring to the end.

干嘛写那么全，没看到稿约上的字数要求吗？看在你文章好到起飞的份上，这次嘛，就原谅你了。

评审 8. The subject of the study is interesting but the results are not really novel. The authors merely used somewhat bigger guns than previous studies and generated nothing but more smoke. There are also dozens of additional problems with the manuscript that I am simply not prepared to discuss in more detail on a Saturday evening.

这文章虎头蛇尾的，刚看到吧，还觉得有点儿意思，后面就不行了。你在文章前面放的「烟幕弹」挺大，如此老旧的研究不但没骗过我，还搞得自己灰头土脸的。这稿子其他毛病还楞个多，多看一眼都浪费我休息时间。

评审 9. There is more speculation in this article than actual data.

把原始数据都发我看看，没有？呵呵，我就知道。哥可是做过这个实验的人哦，赶快给我实验去！

评审 10. I do not understand why the co-authors of this manuscript have allowed their names to be in the author list.

你投出这么 shit 的稿子，其他被挂名的作者们知道吗？

评审 11. It is rare when a reviewer receives a genuinely flawless manuscript to review on an interesting new topic, but the ms by X clearly fits the bill.

编辑，你看看你以前发我审的都是什么烂稿子。要不是这次 X 女士投稿的研究如此深得我心，我以后都打算绝交，不再审你们的稿子了。

评审 12. One sample – one 16S rRNA gene 454 library; only really acceptable if it had come from Mars.

你是来搞笑的吗？做了一个基因层面的研究单样本研究就来投稿，你以为你的样本是火星来的啊！

评审 13. I assure that you will get the comments today in the course of the evening. I have now to hurry to take exams.

我现在正忙着准备参加考试，但我保证：你今晚会收到审稿意见。审稿意见的好坏，嗯，看我今天考得怎样了，哈哈。

评审 14. The Introduction and the Discussion sections are contradictory. I even believe that the Discussion may actually belong to another manuscript.

前言和讨论部分相互矛盾，同学，你这样天马行空、思维跃进地乱写，你老板知道吗？又或者，你这讨论是从哪抄来的？老实交代！

评审 15. I am sorry that I have spoiled my Xmas holidays with such a bad manuscript.

我的天啊！看到这么差劲的稿件，我整个圣诞节心情都不好！作者，还有编辑，你们赔我假期！

评审 16. I am fed up with people ignoring totally the instructions for authors

你们投稿怎么都不看杂志要求，这是要闹哪样？我受够了！信不信我分分钟 regect！

<link />