Revisions requested: the usual crapshoot

9 08 2014

We heard back from two more journals last week.

Mike, Jamie and I submitted an invited piece for the ILAR Journal a few weeks ago, on choosing appropriate animal numbers in research. We just got back a dense long list of referees’ comments and a request for ‘major revision’ – daunting at first, but actually, on second or third read all very dealable with so not that bad at all.

More depressing (ironically) were the comments back on Carole‘s terrific horse depression paper, which we’d resubmitted to AABS. Just one day after she’d presented it to great feedback at the ISAE (such great feedback she was worried her “ankles would get swollen”; apparently this is what happens to French people who get big-headed), one referee strongly denounced us for using the DSM-V as an authority, while simultaneously convinced that using an alpha of 0.05 is such an absolute, non-arbitrary rule that if p = 0.056 (still only 1/18 likely due to chance), an effect should be utterly ignored as completely non-significant. This is going to be a tough one, as we have a clash of opinions here. Let’s hope the editor has King Solomon-like wisdom.

Hmm, feel the urge to watch ‘The Third Referee’ again…