Well, I wrote the paper review.

And I feel kind of dirty and bad and mean and bitchy now, like I always do when a paper really isn't up to the journal's standards. I mean, I know, I'm doin' my job. But I've also had my share of rejections where I read the reviewer's comments and cried (Well, I've tried to not be THAT bitchy with my comments, really, it's an interesting experimental design, they just didn't collect the data in a way that lends itself to proper analysis and their conclusions were kind of unremarkable) or asked myself what crackpipe the reviewer was sucking on when they made certain comments (there's one passage I simply don't understand in the paper, and not for want of re-reading. So I guess that's the "crackpipe moment" for the writers of the paper. Sorry, guys, I just don't get it. Maybe I'm just dense right now.).

I don't know that I've EVER reviewed a paper that I said "Yeah, accept this one right as it is, without revisions." (but then again, I've only once had a paper accepted right as it is, without revisions. Actually, I guess I win that one. Me one, other writers I've reviewed, nothing. Or something like that). Actually, most of the papers I've reviewed I've voted to reject. I don't know, maybe having had so many rejected myself has hardened me? Or it's taught me what reviewers look for to be wrong, and then are on that like a duck on a Junebug? (I know, that last sentence makes little sense, but I just wanted to have the chance to use the phrase "like a duck on a Junebug").