Just had my first rejection of a paper. I don't actually know why it was rejected, because the referee's lengthy comments contain basically no information besides, "I don't find this result convincing". That's extremely frustrating. We gave a clearly defined objective procedure explaining why our detections are real and not the result of noise. To then simply say, "I don't believe you" without giving any hint of a reason is extremely unprofessional and belittles the work that went into this. It also denies us any way to argue against it. Readers are of course always free to disagree for any reason, but a referee ought to justify their reasons - if they can't do this, then they should accept the importance of people publishing results they disagree with.

I have no idea why this result is in any way controversial. All it does is find a signature of galaxy evolution that's consistent with known processes, other observations, and theoretical models. Baffles the heck out of me. Not sure what we're gonna do next - expect more rants pending conversations with co-authors.

Hans W diaspora
No attack but could it be that you mentioned sources without explaining how you used it to get results?
Rhysy diaspora
I don't see how, there are lengthy descriptions of our procedures in enough detail that anyone familiar with the method ought to be able to recreate our results.