7,612
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Measuring High-Growth High-Technology Entrepreneurship Ecosystems (view source)
Revision as of 19:34, 7 December 2020
, 19:34, 7 December 2020→2nd R&R
*It works as a whole. The reviewer didn't want anything cut: '''It is a collection of case studies and definitions''', and '''I don't have ... major comments'''.
Reviewer 3's comments are more problematic. As is often the case, I wonder wondered whether the reviewer actually read the paper:
*The paper advances seven new measures, not 15 as the reviewer claims
*Policy cartels are introduced in section 4.1 (out of 5), and aren't the main focus of the paper per se
*All bar two sentences of the 'substantive material' in the review (i.e., from "First..." to the end) don't mention anything to do with the paper!
At this point in my career, I'm unique uniquely placed to give the response that every academic really wants to give to the 'self-aggrandizing idiot' that somehow always ends up controlling the fate of our hard work, namely:
:"Dear Reviewer. After carefully considering your comments, I would like the offer the following response: I find your suggestions for my beautiful paper to puerile/irrelevant/narcissistic/useless/stupid/all-of-the-above (delete as appropriate), so I'm going to ignore them and, by extension, you. Up yours."
