Iyfjky

Question

A reviewer declines to review a paper because he wants to be paid. Some time later, this reviewer submits a paper to the journal (or to another journal who's aware of what happened - very possible with today's editorial management systems). How should the journal handle this?

Possible options:

Pretend we didn't notice and review as normal.

Write him an email to tell him we're aware of it, but are reviewing the paper anyway because we're a magnanimous journal.

Charge him a submission fee which we then use to pay the reviewers for that paper only.

Charge him a submission fee which we then use to pay the reviewers for that paper only, plus some extras which we use to pay the editor.

Desk reject because "our reviewers are on strike because they're not paid so we can't find reviewers for your paper".

I'm concerned taking retributive action will come across as petty and / or lead to a lose-lose situation. However, not taking retributive action doesn't feel right either - if the reviewer is not willing to review unless paid, then it's hard to expect other people to review (or handle) his paper unless paid either.

Ã¢Â€Â¢ ask him to write one or two (depending on how many you usually require) reviews in the future before sending his paper out to referees. — 7 hours ago
@Dirk the first part really happened (reviewer declined to review unless paid). The second part is hypothetical. Still, this decline reason is logged in the EMS, so it can happen in the future. — 6 hours ago
@alephzero I dunno, I don't think Machiavelli was quite that petty or meaninglessly vindictive. — 2 hours ago

J. Fabian Meier 7,13331939 · Answer 1 · 2018-09-13 09:14:10Z

up vote
41
down vote

First of all: Is there a rule that you need to be available as reviewer if you want to publish in that specific journal? People decline reviews for all sorts of reasons (often lack of time, which may or may not be the case), and I never heard that somebody got "punished" for that.

Your reviewer wanted to get paid. It is very unusual to pay reviewers, but on the other hand, it is not per se unreasonable or offensive to ask for compensation for work.

I would see it this way: Either you establish a general rule that authors must be available as reviewers or you accept that some people do not review papers (although they publish).

answered 7 hours ago

J. Fabian Meier

7,13331939

11

First of all, I guess that it frequently happens that possible reviewers decline because they do not get anything back for their review (they may or may not reveal this reason). Secondly, I would question whether you cannot afford it. Most journals charge their readers (mostly libraries). Theoretically, it would be possible to take some of that money to pay reviewers.
â€“Â J. Fabian Meier
5 hours ago

4

@Allure I am sorry, I do not understand your comparison. I am just saying that it would be theoretically possible to pay reviewers because the publishing house is making money with the reviewed papers.
â€“Â J. Fabian Meier
5 hours ago

19

@Allure "Since we couldn't afford to pay him" - that would be your problem, which you're trying to make the reviewers problem. You as a journal are charging money for people to be able to read the papers, but you're expecting reviewers to work for you for free. He/she sees the fundamental disconnect here, and is objecting as he might review a large number of papers but never get anything for it. Does that mean you should review your pricing model? Well, that depends, do you want the papers you publish reviewed?
â€“Â UKMonkey
4 hours ago

3

@Allure The professor/PhD student situation is neither unreasonable nor hypothetical: It happens all the time (professors paying PhD students out of their grant money, including their tuition fees). So IÃ¢Â€Â™m not sure what point youÃ¢Â€Â™re trying to make but it rather backfired.
â€“Â Konrad Rudolph
49 mins ago

1

@Allure I don't understand the point your making, we do get paid to do PhDs and it's often on our supervisor's grant money. Doesn't that make it sound like the journal can pay the reviewers?
â€“Â Clumsy cat
48 mins ago

Â |Â
show 2 more comments

corey979 2,95331629 · Answer 2 · 2018-09-13 11:24:16Z

The editors of a journal should be professional at all times. Like in any part of life, in academia there will also from time to time be annoying individuals. Don't get down to their level.

Your point 5. would be simply acting out of vengeance. Regarding points 3. & 4. Ã¢Â€Â“ is a fee a regular thing for this journal? Because if not, it would be a vengeful misconduct. If there is a fee, is it usually used to pay the reviewers? If yes, why wasn't this author paid for his review? If not, why are you considering an exception? This won't be a one-time incident: if you write again to those reviewers, they will want to be paid again, because you set a precedence. If they tell colleagues they were paid, you will be short of reviewers because everyone will want to be paid and will refuse to do so otherwise.

Point 1. is the only right thing to do; if you want to be malicious, maybe also 2., but that's still a bit unprofessional to me.

In general, the author's and reviewer's role (even for the same person) should be separated. Being a reviewer is mostly voluntary, and it's just agreed/expected in the community to act as a reviewer from time to time. You cannot force anyone to do it. But you are obliged (as an editor of a publisher's journal) to consider for publication papers that you receive. Just get over this, and maybe consider avoiding working with this person as a reviewer or other such roles in the future. But don't dismiss him as an author. Don't be vengeful.

I totally agree with this answer. I have never heard of a policy that journals will only publish papers by authors who have acted as reviewers for that journal. I have personally reviewed papers for journals I have never published in. The person is clearly trying to make a point in declining the review (journal fees, volunteer reviewing and academic publishing in general is a very contentious point right now) and frankly, I applaud their stance. Unless you normally charge a fee you can't single out this one person. — 5 hours ago

score 12 · Answer 3 · 2018-09-13 12:43:50Z

Any potential reviewer with appropriate expertise who declines to review for a journal is effectively saying "my time is worth more than that". This individual is trying to find an equitable middle ground. Sure, paid reviewership very uncommon and totally outside the norms of academic review, but it's completely indefensible to take vengeance on this person because he feels that journals don't appropriately value reviewers' time.

Anything other than accepting the submission and reviewing it like any other is petty, discriminative, and potentially damaging for your journal's reputation. I know I would have serious reservations about submitting or subscribing to a journal that rejected papers irrespective of their content and based solely on personal vendettas with the author (option #5).

Peer review isn't a mechanism to get back at people.

Empischon 1674 · Answer 4 · 2018-09-13 13:09:28Z

I'll go a little outside the box here and say:

You should pay him and all the other reviewers for reviews.

While certainly paying the reviewers is not a common practice nowadays does not mean it should not be.

In the current world, where each and every scientists is needlessly overloaded with bureaucracy, the amount of students in classes, numbers of those classes and students one has to mentor grows bigger and bigger, and the competition for the very survival - the grant money, requires more and more effort and submissions and work - time is a very precious resource.

It therefore is completely reasonable that a person is not willing to give that resource away for free.

Academic publishing is already one of the best ratios of income to money invested of all businesses in the world.

Maybe the journals could do the right thing here, and give something back to the scientific community. Community which produces the product they sell and give it to them for free.

"It therefore is completely reasonable that a person is not willing to give that resource away for free." That's like saying that it's completely reasonable that a person is not willing to give away friendship (or parenting or love...) for free. People do so because of reciprocity. Paying money for referees would, at best, open a huge can of worms. — 1 hour ago
@PeteL.Clark I do not know about You, but I have little love or friendship for publishers. — 55 mins ago
I have virtually none. But refereeing is not a service contributed to the publisher; it's a service contributed to the author and to the academic community. I referee your papers because I want and need you to referee mine (or something similar but with more parties). Paying referees would open several cans of worms with respect to quality, fairness and conflicts of interest. It is also really naive to think that the publishing companies will provide this service out of their current (enormous) profit margins. Or so I believe, anyway. — 43 mins ago

Buffy 16.5k55191 · Answer 5 · 2018-09-13 12:25:37Z

Actually, the journal should handle a problem like this much earlier. It may be that the "reviewer" just doesn't know how the game is played and that reviewing is seen as a contribution to one's peers. To be a professional is to offer this service and, by cooperating, others will, hopefully, do the same.

Therefore, send a letter to the person when they first refuse for this reason, explaining the process and the fact that reviewers are never paid and that paying them would increase the costs to readers as well, given that there are more reviews done than articles published.

At that time, let them know that, while it is possible to refuse any given paper for review, if they refuse to participate in the process at all, then their future work won't be accepted as a matter of policy.

I have refused to review papers for a variety of reasons, often because I felt I didn't know enough of the subject to do it justice. No one should have to make reviewing their first priority. But if they refuse to participate in a society as constituted they won't be welcome in it.

They are, of course, welcome to work for a more rational system if they like.

Ã¢Â€ÂœBut if they refuse to participate in a society as constituted they won't be welcome in it.Ã¢Â€Â Ã¢Â€Â” The person in question is probably more than happy to review pro bono for a journal that doesnÃ¢Â€Â™t charge exorbitant publishing/subscription fees, or has otherwise questionable business practices. At least thatÃ¢Â€Â™s usually the case. — 46 mins ago

RPL 1212 · Answer 6 · 2018-09-13 14:37:40Z

I agree with the answers that say that it's unethical to single out a submitter for retaliation because they annoyed you when you asked them to review. If you want reviewing papers to be a requirement for submitting papers, then you need to have a clearly articulated policy that says so up front. This is the case irrespective of whether they refuse because they want to be paid, or for some other reason.

The question you need to ask yourself is, are you sure you want such a policy? Crafting such a policy in a way that would be fair to all people involved would be hard. You have to answer questions like, how many review requests can you refuse and still remain in good standing? Are there valid reasons that might excuse a refusal? How do you verify them? How do you ensure a fair distribution of review requests? What do you do about people who want to submit but have never been asked to review? The list goes on and on.

Equally importantly, are you sure you want people writing reviews grudgingly? Reviewers who are only doing the review because it's a requirement for getting published are likely to do a mediocre job. You can expect such people to put forth the minimal effort required to meet whatever standard you set. Some won't do even that, and so now you have to find a way to review the reviews. The end result is likely to be that the quality of peer review in your journal will go down because poor reviewers will no longer be self-selecting out of the reviewing pool.

It stinks that some people free-ride on the peer review system, but any effort to punish them or force them to participate is likely to backfire. The best thing you can do is to treat them like any other author and leave it to community norms to encourage people to do their share of reviewing.

DonQuiKong 1,268614 · Answer 7 · 2018-09-13 13:13:43Z

A journal accepts articles because it depends on publishing articles.

People don't pay for publishing by reviewing.

People review for whatever reasons and are paid with fame or a good feeling.

There is no connection between reviewing a paper and submitting one.

Especially Lime 1,901148 · Answer 8 · 2018-09-13 14:02:06Z

As a reviewer, I would be happy to treat this paper just like any other.

I consider that I do get paid to review papers, in the sense that my employer expects that I do a small amount of reviewing. If this person is refusing to review on the grounds that reviewers don't get paid, perhaps they don't currently have a position where reviewing is encouraged.

People who can't use work time to review (perhaps because they are outside of academia) should still be able to publish papers, and IMO they shouldn't be expected to review in return - though of course they can still be asked!

Pete L. Clark 112k23298456 · Answer 9 · 2018-09-13 15:56:14Z

All options except 1) and 2) seem completely unprofessional to me. 5) is, strictly speaking, a terrible lie. You imagine that the author will figure out that you are being mean and sarcastic rather than actually dishonest, but they may not. 4) is perhaps yet more unethical: as an editor of the journal you punish the author by paying...yourself??

As for 3), you are offering a selected individual author the right to pay for their refereeing -- what if they take you up on the offer now and in the future? What if you get other offers by authors to pay for their refereeing? How will you maintain fairness and prevent conflicts of interest? What a mess.

I also think that punishing someone who turns down a referee request for this reason is a bit naive. Lots of people turn down referee requests all the time, generally without giving reasons or giving reasons that don't really explain anything ("Sorry, I'm too busy.") This particular academic seems a bit naive about how the refereeing process works and that came out in their reply. But they'll learn if they stick around. You could take it upon yourself to offer friendly advice -- i.e., some version of 2), although the text you give reads as pretty snarky to me -- or just assume that the data point of your experience will be filed away.

Selectively enforcing what you perceive to be ungenerous refereeing practices just doesn't make sense because you have so little information about who the good and bad referees actually are. Don't you think there are much more senior academics that refuse most or all requests because they are "too busy" or pawn them off on their students (possibly without giving credit, which I feel is really problematic) or spend way too long with requests gumming up the works or contribute totally superficial, unhelpful reports or only contribute reports to settle their own scores or......There is way too much here for any one editor or journal to wade into, I think.

score 0 · Answer 10 · 2018-09-13 16:02:46Z

Follow the journalÃ¢Â€Â™s publicly advertised policies.

I assume that the journal has a web page with a text titled Ã¢Â€ÂœInstructions for authorsÃ¢Â€Â or Ã¢Â€ÂœJournal policiesÃ¢Â€Â or something similar. This is the place where the journal indicates that the journal will not accept already published papers, double submissions, papers that arenÃ¢Â€Â™t typeset in Comic Sans font, or whatever. The journal is free to make its own rules about what papers it is willing to consider, but needs to advertise them to prospective authors, since it is unprofessional to waste peopleÃ¢Â€Â™s time.

If the journalÃ¢Â€Â™s advertised policy is to refuse to review papers from authors who previously asked for money to do a review for the journal (or something more general that includes that situation as a special case), then you not only can, but in fact you must follow that policy and let the author know you cannot consider their submission.

Otherwise, you have no legitimate reason to treat the submission any differently from any other one.

J. Fabian Meier 7,13331939 · Answer 11 · 2018-09-13 09:14:10Z

up vote
41
down vote

First of all: Is there a rule that you need to be available as reviewer if you want to publish in that specific journal? People decline reviews for all sorts of reasons (often lack of time, which may or may not be the case), and I never heard that somebody got "punished" for that.

Your reviewer wanted to get paid. It is very unusual to pay reviewers, but on the other hand, it is not per se unreasonable or offensive to ask for compensation for work.

I would see it this way: Either you establish a general rule that authors must be available as reviewers or you accept that some people do not review papers (although they publish).

answered 7 hours ago

J. Fabian Meier

7,13331939

11

First of all, I guess that it frequently happens that possible reviewers decline because they do not get anything back for their review (they may or may not reveal this reason). Secondly, I would question whether you cannot afford it. Most journals charge their readers (mostly libraries). Theoretically, it would be possible to take some of that money to pay reviewers.
â€“Â J. Fabian Meier
5 hours ago

4

@Allure I am sorry, I do not understand your comparison. I am just saying that it would be theoretically possible to pay reviewers because the publishing house is making money with the reviewed papers.
â€“Â J. Fabian Meier
5 hours ago

19

@Allure "Since we couldn't afford to pay him" - that would be your problem, which you're trying to make the reviewers problem. You as a journal are charging money for people to be able to read the papers, but you're expecting reviewers to work for you for free. He/she sees the fundamental disconnect here, and is objecting as he might review a large number of papers but never get anything for it. Does that mean you should review your pricing model? Well, that depends, do you want the papers you publish reviewed?
â€“Â UKMonkey
4 hours ago

3

@Allure The professor/PhD student situation is neither unreasonable nor hypothetical: It happens all the time (professors paying PhD students out of their grant money, including their tuition fees). So IÃ¢Â€Â™m not sure what point youÃ¢Â€Â™re trying to make but it rather backfired.
â€“Â Konrad Rudolph
49 mins ago

1

@Allure I don't understand the point your making, we do get paid to do PhDs and it's often on our supervisor's grant money. Doesn't that make it sound like the journal can pay the reviewers?
â€“Â Clumsy cat
48 mins ago

Â |Â
show 2 more comments

corey979 2,95331629 · Answer 12 · 2018-09-13 11:24:16Z

The editors of a journal should be professional at all times. Like in any part of life, in academia there will also from time to time be annoying individuals. Don't get down to their level.

Your point 5. would be simply acting out of vengeance. Regarding points 3. & 4. Ã¢Â€Â“ is a fee a regular thing for this journal? Because if not, it would be a vengeful misconduct. If there is a fee, is it usually used to pay the reviewers? If yes, why wasn't this author paid for his review? If not, why are you considering an exception? This won't be a one-time incident: if you write again to those reviewers, they will want to be paid again, because you set a precedence. If they tell colleagues they were paid, you will be short of reviewers because everyone will want to be paid and will refuse to do so otherwise.

Point 1. is the only right thing to do; if you want to be malicious, maybe also 2., but that's still a bit unprofessional to me.

In general, the author's and reviewer's role (even for the same person) should be separated. Being a reviewer is mostly voluntary, and it's just agreed/expected in the community to act as a reviewer from time to time. You cannot force anyone to do it. But you are obliged (as an editor of a publisher's journal) to consider for publication papers that you receive. Just get over this, and maybe consider avoiding working with this person as a reviewer or other such roles in the future. But don't dismiss him as an author. Don't be vengeful.

I totally agree with this answer. I have never heard of a policy that journals will only publish papers by authors who have acted as reviewers for that journal. I have personally reviewed papers for journals I have never published in. The person is clearly trying to make a point in declining the review (journal fees, volunteer reviewing and academic publishing in general is a very contentious point right now) and frankly, I applaud their stance. Unless you normally charge a fee you can't single out this one person. — 5 hours ago

score 12 · Answer 13 · 2018-09-13 12:43:50Z

Any potential reviewer with appropriate expertise who declines to review for a journal is effectively saying "my time is worth more than that". This individual is trying to find an equitable middle ground. Sure, paid reviewership very uncommon and totally outside the norms of academic review, but it's completely indefensible to take vengeance on this person because he feels that journals don't appropriately value reviewers' time.

Anything other than accepting the submission and reviewing it like any other is petty, discriminative, and potentially damaging for your journal's reputation. I know I would have serious reservations about submitting or subscribing to a journal that rejected papers irrespective of their content and based solely on personal vendettas with the author (option #5).

Peer review isn't a mechanism to get back at people.

Empischon 1674 · Answer 14 · 2018-09-13 13:09:28Z

I'll go a little outside the box here and say:

You should pay him and all the other reviewers for reviews.

While certainly paying the reviewers is not a common practice nowadays does not mean it should not be.

In the current world, where each and every scientists is needlessly overloaded with bureaucracy, the amount of students in classes, numbers of those classes and students one has to mentor grows bigger and bigger, and the competition for the very survival - the grant money, requires more and more effort and submissions and work - time is a very precious resource.

It therefore is completely reasonable that a person is not willing to give that resource away for free.

Academic publishing is already one of the best ratios of income to money invested of all businesses in the world.

Maybe the journals could do the right thing here, and give something back to the scientific community. Community which produces the product they sell and give it to them for free.

"It therefore is completely reasonable that a person is not willing to give that resource away for free." That's like saying that it's completely reasonable that a person is not willing to give away friendship (or parenting or love...) for free. People do so because of reciprocity. Paying money for referees would, at best, open a huge can of worms. — 1 hour ago
@PeteL.Clark I do not know about You, but I have little love or friendship for publishers. — 55 mins ago
I have virtually none. But refereeing is not a service contributed to the publisher; it's a service contributed to the author and to the academic community. I referee your papers because I want and need you to referee mine (or something similar but with more parties). Paying referees would open several cans of worms with respect to quality, fairness and conflicts of interest. It is also really naive to think that the publishing companies will provide this service out of their current (enormous) profit margins. Or so I believe, anyway. — 43 mins ago

Buffy 16.5k55191 · Answer 15 · 2018-09-13 12:25:37Z

Actually, the journal should handle a problem like this much earlier. It may be that the "reviewer" just doesn't know how the game is played and that reviewing is seen as a contribution to one's peers. To be a professional is to offer this service and, by cooperating, others will, hopefully, do the same.

Therefore, send a letter to the person when they first refuse for this reason, explaining the process and the fact that reviewers are never paid and that paying them would increase the costs to readers as well, given that there are more reviews done than articles published.

At that time, let them know that, while it is possible to refuse any given paper for review, if they refuse to participate in the process at all, then their future work won't be accepted as a matter of policy.

I have refused to review papers for a variety of reasons, often because I felt I didn't know enough of the subject to do it justice. No one should have to make reviewing their first priority. But if they refuse to participate in a society as constituted they won't be welcome in it.

They are, of course, welcome to work for a more rational system if they like.

Ã¢Â€ÂœBut if they refuse to participate in a society as constituted they won't be welcome in it.Ã¢Â€Â Ã¢Â€Â” The person in question is probably more than happy to review pro bono for a journal that doesnÃ¢Â€Â™t charge exorbitant publishing/subscription fees, or has otherwise questionable business practices. At least thatÃ¢Â€Â™s usually the case. — 46 mins ago

RPL 1212 · Answer 16 · 2018-09-13 14:37:40Z

I agree with the answers that say that it's unethical to single out a submitter for retaliation because they annoyed you when you asked them to review. If you want reviewing papers to be a requirement for submitting papers, then you need to have a clearly articulated policy that says so up front. This is the case irrespective of whether they refuse because they want to be paid, or for some other reason.

The question you need to ask yourself is, are you sure you want such a policy? Crafting such a policy in a way that would be fair to all people involved would be hard. You have to answer questions like, how many review requests can you refuse and still remain in good standing? Are there valid reasons that might excuse a refusal? How do you verify them? How do you ensure a fair distribution of review requests? What do you do about people who want to submit but have never been asked to review? The list goes on and on.

Equally importantly, are you sure you want people writing reviews grudgingly? Reviewers who are only doing the review because it's a requirement for getting published are likely to do a mediocre job. You can expect such people to put forth the minimal effort required to meet whatever standard you set. Some won't do even that, and so now you have to find a way to review the reviews. The end result is likely to be that the quality of peer review in your journal will go down because poor reviewers will no longer be self-selecting out of the reviewing pool.

It stinks that some people free-ride on the peer review system, but any effort to punish them or force them to participate is likely to backfire. The best thing you can do is to treat them like any other author and leave it to community norms to encourage people to do their share of reviewing.

DonQuiKong 1,268614 · Answer 17 · 2018-09-13 13:13:43Z

A journal accepts articles because it depends on publishing articles.

People don't pay for publishing by reviewing.

People review for whatever reasons and are paid with fame or a good feeling.

There is no connection between reviewing a paper and submitting one.

Especially Lime 1,901148 · Answer 18 · 2018-09-13 14:02:06Z

As a reviewer, I would be happy to treat this paper just like any other.

I consider that I do get paid to review papers, in the sense that my employer expects that I do a small amount of reviewing. If this person is refusing to review on the grounds that reviewers don't get paid, perhaps they don't currently have a position where reviewing is encouraged.

People who can't use work time to review (perhaps because they are outside of academia) should still be able to publish papers, and IMO they shouldn't be expected to review in return - though of course they can still be asked!

Pete L. Clark 112k23298456 · Answer 19 · 2018-09-13 15:56:14Z

All options except 1) and 2) seem completely unprofessional to me. 5) is, strictly speaking, a terrible lie. You imagine that the author will figure out that you are being mean and sarcastic rather than actually dishonest, but they may not. 4) is perhaps yet more unethical: as an editor of the journal you punish the author by paying...yourself??

As for 3), you are offering a selected individual author the right to pay for their refereeing -- what if they take you up on the offer now and in the future? What if you get other offers by authors to pay for their refereeing? How will you maintain fairness and prevent conflicts of interest? What a mess.

I also think that punishing someone who turns down a referee request for this reason is a bit naive. Lots of people turn down referee requests all the time, generally without giving reasons or giving reasons that don't really explain anything ("Sorry, I'm too busy.") This particular academic seems a bit naive about how the refereeing process works and that came out in their reply. But they'll learn if they stick around. You could take it upon yourself to offer friendly advice -- i.e., some version of 2), although the text you give reads as pretty snarky to me -- or just assume that the data point of your experience will be filed away.

Selectively enforcing what you perceive to be ungenerous refereeing practices just doesn't make sense because you have so little information about who the good and bad referees actually are. Don't you think there are much more senior academics that refuse most or all requests because they are "too busy" or pawn them off on their students (possibly without giving credit, which I feel is really problematic) or spend way too long with requests gumming up the works or contribute totally superficial, unhelpful reports or only contribute reports to settle their own scores or......There is way too much here for any one editor or journal to wade into, I think.

score 0 · Answer 20 · 2018-09-13 16:02:46Z

Follow the journalÃ¢Â€Â™s publicly advertised policies.

I assume that the journal has a web page with a text titled Ã¢Â€ÂœInstructions for authorsÃ¢Â€Â or Ã¢Â€ÂœJournal policiesÃ¢Â€Â or something similar. This is the place where the journal indicates that the journal will not accept already published papers, double submissions, papers that arenÃ¢Â€Â™t typeset in Comic Sans font, or whatever. The journal is free to make its own rules about what papers it is willing to consider, but needs to advertise them to prospective authors, since it is unprofessional to waste peopleÃ¢Â€Â™s time.

If the journalÃ¢Â€Â™s advertised policy is to refuse to review papers from authors who previously asked for money to do a review for the journal (or something more general that includes that situation as a special case), then you not only can, but in fact you must follow that policy and let the author know you cannot consider their submission.

Otherwise, you have no legitimate reason to treat the submission any differently from any other one.

Search This Blog

Iyfjky

How to handle a paper by a reviewer who wants to be paid?

10 Answers
10

Your Answer

Post as a guest

10 Answers
10

10 Answers
10

Post as a guest

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How to decode/decipher Mozilla Firefox proprietary .jsonlz4 format? (sessionstore-backups/recovery.jsonlz4)

White Anglo-Saxon Protestant

How to be valuable when automation & IT are stealing my job (and maybe my whole career)? [closed]

Category

Random preview

How to handle a paper by a reviewer who wants to be paid?

10 Answers 10

Your Answer

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Post as a guest

10 Answers 10

10 Answers 10

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Post as a guest

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How to decode/decipher Mozilla Firefox proprietary .jsonlz4 format? (sessionstore-backups/recovery.jsonlz4)

White Anglo-Saxon Protestant

How to be valuable when automation & IT are stealing my job (and maybe my whole career)? [closed]

10 Answers
10

10 Answers
10

10 Answers
10