Discussion Overview
The discussion revolves around the implications of receiving a referee's comments shortly after manuscript submission to Physical Review Letters. Participants share their experiences and thoughts on what a quick response might indicate regarding the quality of the review or the manuscript itself.
Discussion Character
- Exploratory, Debate/contested
Main Points Raised
- One participant expresses concern about the quick turnaround of a referee's comments, questioning whether it indicates a positive or negative review.
- Another participant suggests that if the comments are available, the author could read them to alleviate their worries.
- A different participant notes that the tracking system may only indicate that a review was received, and the time taken could vary for many reasons, including the referee's availability or potential conflicts of interest.
- One contributor shares a personal anecdote about a paper being accepted very quickly, implying that rapid responses can occur without negative implications.
- The original poster acknowledges the advice and expresses a desire to focus on other projects instead of worrying about the review.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants generally agree that the quick response time does not necessarily indicate the quality of the review, but there are differing opinions on how much weight should be given to the timing of the comments.
Contextual Notes
Participants mention various factors that could influence the timing of referee comments, including personal circumstances and editorial processes, but do not resolve the implications of these factors.
Who May Find This Useful
Researchers submitting manuscripts to journals, particularly those interested in the peer review process and its variability.