You have to stand in awe at how he derides them for “ideologically biased assumptions” and in the next sentence uses his own ideological biased assumptions as his reason to reject this paper. Wow.

Good news: This journal just won the Nobel Prize in Irony!

You are right - they should take a page from the “blind” auditions some symphonies now use (which has eliminated a lot of gender discrimination).

1. Reviewing other’s work brings out the asshat in almost everyone. Scientific reviewers feel an obligation to tough and rigorous, which is fine. But too often it’s a license to be a jerk. I often see reviews that make it quite clear that the reviewer didn’t actually read the paper, because point-for-point every…

I’ve been on both sides of the peer review process - as a reviewer and an author submitting something to a journal - and I can tell you that although it’s critical to the scientific process, it can oftentimes be an utter joke. One time I got comments back on a manuscript that sounded as if they were literally for a…

The reviewer also suggests that male doctoral candidates may have co-authored more papers than females because they can work on average 15 minutes longer per week.

Dr. Fiona C. Ingleby: I am an evolutionary biologist interested in the genetics of complex traits and sexual conflict.

This is one of the many reasons why peer reviews should be anonymous both ways, reviewers shouldn't know for whom they are reviewing.

“You – um — the reason I’m asking about the past, is that you’ve talked in other interviews again about your relationship with your father and the role of all of that in the – you know the dark periods you entered and taking drugs and drinking and all of that. And I just wondered whether – you know – you think you’re…

I think the number of people holding their nose and voting for Hillary will far outnumber those supporting her ecstatically.

He’s on a press tour for a movie, not an apology tour for his past. There’s no justification to blindsiding someone who is there to talk about a superhero movie by bringing up shit from their past familial relationships, heartache, and drug abuse. His line of questioning was blatantly rude, and he knew it — hence the…

But what kind of actual journalist pussyfoots around questions involving decade-old news?

Eh, I think Guru-Murthy was out of line, it was billed as a PR interview for a superhero movie for kids, the pains Guru-Murthy took to eventually twist the interview to being about “the problems RDJ has with his father” were so blatantly incongruous it was cringe-worthy. Listening to it a second time you could tell…

Guru-Murthy seems like a pretty shit interviewer though. He comes off as really awkward when asking half his questions, and he doesn’t seem to have any read on the person he’s interviewing.

Also, asking a vaguely worded question covering RDJ’s relationship with his father, his drug addiction, and his time in prison,…

RDJ’s past with drug abuse, etc. is common knowledge, so it’s not like the interviewer is getting a scoop on something. Why is it of any interest other than to stir up some shit and get a reaction.

For once, I’m team Downey, Jr.

that cleavage cutout is everything

KHALEESI IS A TITLE. BARACK OBAMA’S NAME IS NOT “PRESIDENT.”

I know this is naive of me but it just boggles the mind that these 10 adult men spent time “orchestrating” the shooting of a 14 year old girl without having some sort of crisis of conscience. I really hope they spend a lot of the next 25 years thinking on what that says about who they are.