In light of several “bad peer review" shared on twitter recently, I thought I’d share one of my stories. It is long (buckle up!) but I think instructive for what it reveals about the logic of the system. (It might also be a "bad author" story...)
More than a decade ago, a colleague & I were struggling to publish a paper we thought was pathbreaking. Versions of it were rejected by two major journals. We were frustrated we weren’t...
... getting our idea across. One thing led to another & we ended up making a massive investment over a couple of years to gut & reconstruct the paper. We felt good about the new draft to the point we were glad the prior draft has been rejected.