Reviewer 1 wrote: "You cannot refer to [your own] texts that have not been peer reviewed and may never be published." The text in question is an invited submission to a special issue and I will submit next month. I feel it would be helpful to let interested readers that I develop this idea further with additional data in a separate paper but #Reviewer1 clearly disagrees so your thoughts would be welcome... Thanks! #AcademicChatter

@academicchatter

Taking into account the typical “decline” response rate, at least 6 very suitable reviewers from the top of the list will be invited. These are busy people, so only one of them accepts the invitation. This is #Reviewer1, who will write a helpful and constructive review. (2/4)

So, #Reviewer1 praised the paper and asked for 2 minor changes that took me about 1 minute each to do. #Reviewer2 sat down, grabbed a cup of coffee, got comfortable, snapped their fingers, and asked for three ****ing pages of points to change, with topics and subtopics.

On this #WomenInScienceDay I want to celebrate all the inspiring women & those of my @cellcommlab

Also my #Reviewer1
"So my dear only few peops become astronauts & go to space"
"I see. But also from Chile🇨🇱"
"Actually no one yet"
"Yeees...Me!" 😍

(Figs: space's route & selfie)