The academic world is an interesting one, especially in terms of publication. During my career, I have submitted numerous articles to journals and conferences, some of which were accepted, and others rejected which is quite normal. Being also part of the editorial board of a journal myself, and serving as a reviewer for journals and conferences, I have also seen some interesting things.

I am a little confused as to how reviewers have such contradicting perspectives on the same paper that was submitted. Lately, this has happened to me, and I have seen it happen before, and it just confuses me. Perhaps it has something to do with "deterministic screens", in which people see ideas/concepts/papers through their "own" screen. However, being a scientist, objectivity should be apparent. If you have faced a similar issue in the past, feel free to comment, or if you have an idea of why that is the case, also feel free to comment.

I just think its weird that sometimes you get two reviews, the first states "Wow, this is the best thing since sliced bread", and the other says "Wow, this is most pathetic piece of work I have ever seen!". The political world of academia never stops!

Leave a Reply.