The medical black technology system of the top student

When he saw Brennan's name, Lu Liang's expression suddenly became strange.

Lu Liang was deeply impressed by Brennan.

When the article was originally published in Science, Brennan, as a reviewer, directly rejected the article without any reason.

Then at the Asian Lung Cancer Conference, Brennan even asked a tricky question in an attempt to undermine Lu Liang's academic reputation.

In the end, not only did he fail, but he also got himself into trouble.

However, in a sense, Brennan succeeded. He successfully made Lu Liang remember it, and he still wrote it down in a small notebook.

Originally, Lu Liang was a little regretful that he might not have the chance to meet Brennan again in the future, but he didn't expect that he would meet him like this?

But then again.

Lu Liangzheng was wondering how the author of an article of this caliber got the confidence to submit it to a Science sub-journal, and the other two reviewers also gave feedback on the manuscript.

It turns out that the corresponding author of the article was named Brennan.

This can explain it all at once, it’s all about human nature!

At this time, Ji Hong took a sip of water, and then said slowly: How about you review this article?

Lu Liang coughed dryly and looked a little shy: Isn't this not good, teacher?

Ji Hong said nonchalantly: It's not a big deal. Anyway, whether you review the manuscript or I review it, the final result will be the same.

Moreover, most professors do not have much time, so it is very common for their students to review articles sent by journals.

At best, you can take a final look at the opinions given by students and then make slight modifications to these opinions.

Since Ji Hongdu said so, Lu Liang did not hesitate and agreed immediately.

Ji Hong quickly sent the paper to Lu Liang.

After returning to the study room, Lu Liang opened the article Ji Hong sent him.

The editor and the other two reviewers knew that they couldn't afford to offend Brennan, so they simply gave him a favor and allowed the article to be published.

But Lu Liang is different.

Anyway, he had already broken up with Brennan, so he didn't care if Brennan would trip him up.

What's more, journals adopt a blind review system.

In other words, when the final review comments are sent back, Brennan will only see the review comments at most, but only the journal editor knows who is reviewing the manuscript, and Brennan has no idea at all.

Thinking of this, Lu Liang grinned. If this was the case, then there was no need for him to be polite.

At night, in the office.

A new email notification sounded on Ji Hong's computer, and Lu Liang sent his review comments.

Ji Hong clicked on the email and glanced at Lu Liang's review comments. However, when he saw the specific comments, Ji Hong's eyes almost stared.

There is an overlap between Figure 1C and Figure 2A.

Figure 5B microscopy image data are copied and presented in other ways.

There are problems with Western blotting in the article, and there are multiple overlapping tissue section photos. The authenticity of the data in the article is questioned.

Ji Hong couldn't help but click his tongue. He almost took off the other party's underwear, leaving no face for the other party at all.

Such an article would be rejected even if it was submitted to the second section of the Science sub-journal.

Ji Hong couldn't help grinning when he saw the many faults that Lu Liang picked out.

There are so many problems here. Even if it is the opinions of the other two reviewers, the flaws singled out by Lu Liang alone are enough for the journal editor to consider carefully.

If such an article is accepted, will it directly lower the grade of the entire journal Science Translational Medicine?

However, isn’t this the effect you want?

Ji Hong didn't think much about it. After sorting out Lu Liang's review comments, he sent them back directly via email.

As usual, after Brennan came to the office, he first made himself a cup of coffee, and then came to the computer very leisurely.

Brennan was in a good mood because when he drove over this morning, he received an email from the editor of the journal Science Translational Medicine.

Although he was driving at the time and couldn't spare time to watch.

But if you think about it with your buttocks, you can understand that the final result will definitely be included.

After all, the reputation, status and connections he has accumulated over the years in his academic career were not in vain.

His name is hanging everywhere, and whoever reviews the manuscript will be given some face.

Thinking of this, Brennan opened his mailbox and clicked on the email sent to him by the journal editor.

However, when she read the first line of the email, Brennan spurted out the coffee she had just drank.

Your manuscript has been reviewed by relevant scholars and deemed inappropriate for publication in this journal. Please submit it to another journal!

Brennan looked at the content of the email in shock. He never expected that the editor of the journal would reject the article.

After coming to his senses, Brennan's first reaction was that there was something wrong with the reviewer.

If all three reviewers give approval for the manuscript, the journal editor will definitely include the article.

Now that the journal editor has given a rejection reply, it must be that someone among the reviewers has given a rejection opinion.

But the biggest problem now is that journals all adopt a blind review system.

In other words, he didn’t know who the three reviewers hired by the journal editor were!

This made Brennan feel unhappy, and he began to look through the review comments of the three reviewers.

The first reviewer's opinion was quite normal: This study fills the gap in the physiological function of miRNA and is a very good study.

The second reviewer's opinion was similar: The logic of the discussion section may need to be reorganized, but overall it is still worth publishing.

The opinions given by the first two reviewers are considered to be outdated, so the problem lies with the third reviewer.

Brennan narrowed his eyes slightly. He wanted to see what kind of opinion the third reviewer gave, so that the journal editor could directly skip the opinions of the first two reviewers.

With this in mind, Brennan opened the third reviewer's comments.

However, Brennan's breath hitched when he read the third reviewer's comment.

The other party did not give any vague opinions such as which research direction was problematic or the research content was not in-depth enough.

The other party just did one thing, found fault!

Moreover, the other party had a vicious eye and found faults so sharply that even Brennan was speechless for a moment.

Brennan fell silent when she saw this scene.

Could this third reviewer be a great person?

Brennan couldn't help but feel a little nervous.

On the one hand, the other party's vision is too vicious. If he had not been immersed in the academic circle for many years, he would not have such a sophisticated vision.

On the other hand, it was because the other party knew that the corresponding author of this article was him, but still did it without mercy.

This can only show that the other party is not afraid of him at all.

Brennan knows very well that although his status in the academic circle is not low, it does not mean that there are no more powerful people than him.

And through these two points, Brennan is basically certain that the other party must be a more powerful person than him!

Facing such a person, Brennan would not dare to offend him.

Thinking of this, Brennan opened the reply letter. This reply letter is used by authors to reply to reviewers.

If the author has any objections to the reviewer's review, he or she can argue with the reviewer through this reply letter.

But generally not many people do this.

Brennan didn't dare to argue, but honestly wrote a thank you letter in reply.

Thank you for pointing out the above problem. We are accustomed to using powerpoint to pre-assemble experimental pictures.

Due to the large number of experimental groups involved and the large amount of data, we are very sorry that errors occurred when moving or grouping images, and we will correct such errors immediately.

The next day, Lu Liang received the email forwarded by Ji Hong, which was Brennan's reply letter.

Lu Liang glanced at the contents of the thank you letter, and then couldn't help but grin.

Not only did Brennan not dare to get angry because he was so critical, but she also had to thank him.