I'll be sure to do that, Ozzie!OZZIE4DUKE wrote:Outfriggingstanding!![]()
![]()
Please give all three my best! ;)

Moderator: CameronBornAndBred
I'll be sure to do that, Ozzie!OZZIE4DUKE wrote:Outfriggingstanding!![]()
![]()
Please give all three my best! ;)
Sometimes I think we have the same dude as boss...if it weren't for the fact that my boss would never have a function as you described, at all.ArkieDukie wrote: Oh, and he DID invite everyone but me. Nice, right?
ArkieDukie wrote:I was not told this directly, but I overheard my boss and Pushy PI talking. The manuscript was rejected!![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
What a relief!! Was it rejected outright, or was it a "let's see some revisions?" Did the substance of comments support you in any way? Be sure to ask to see the comments.ArkieDukie wrote:Thanks, VDB! I must admit, it made my day, too. I waited until I got home to really laugh about it, though.Very Duke Blue wrote:That's the best news I've had all day.ArkieDukie wrote:I was not told this directly, but I overheard my boss and Pushy PI talking. The manuscript was rejected!![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
What a rhymes-with-schmuck!!!ArkieDukie wrote:Oh, and he DID invite everyone but me. Nice, right?lawgrad91 wrote:It's very poor form to invite one person from work to a party, without opening the invitations to everyone in the office, unless the office is so large that it becomes unmanageable (and ten is not unmanageable). He should have invited no one, or everyone.ArkieDukie wrote:Well, in case I had any doubt about my status in the lab, I found out tonight that my boss is having a 4th of July shindig and invited at least one person in the lab. I wasn't invited. I'm going to be out of town on the 4th, but he didn't know that. Isn't it poor form for the boss to selectively invite employees to a party that he's having, assuming that you have less than 10 people working for you?![]()
Sounds like the PHB. When I turned 40, there were 3 birthdays in our office that month. The other two office staffers (the victim-witness coordinator and "operations manager" -fancy title for head secretary) each got a liter bottle of Grey Goose. He didn't even bother to wish me happy birthday. There are 11 people in my office.
I don't know, but I did hear Pushy PI say something about being optimistic. I heard something about no proof of reproducibiliy, and Pushy PI said they have the data for that. Well, actually, they kinda do. They combined results from multiple experiments to get the results in the manuscript. They also didn't do all of their experiments the same way every time. I bet the existing data will be massaged and the manuscript resubmitted. I'd love to see the comments, but I don't think there's any way in Hades they'll show them to me - especially if there's something in them that backs the problems I had with the manuscript.Lavabe wrote:What a relief!! Was it rejected outright, or was it a "let's see some revisions?" Did the substance of comments support you in any way? Be sure to ask to see the comments.
![]()
Any word from the Minion?![]()
![]()
![]()
You know, that's pretty quick turnaround on a paper. It must have been a slam dunk reject.
DevilAlumna wrote:ArkieDukie wrote:I was not told this directly, but I overheard my boss and Pushy PI talking. The manuscript was rejected!![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
The Minion was in our lab for a good chunk of the day, doing data analysis. She came by my desk to ask me to "help" her calculate the value for a modification she was looking for. I referred her to the website where she could look up the number herself.Lavabe wrote:Any word from the Minion?![]()
![]()
![]()
Good move!ArkieDukie wrote:The Minion was in our lab for a good chunk of the day, doing data analysis. She came by my desk to ask me to "help" her calculate the value for a modification she was looking for. I referred her to the website where she could look up the number herself.Lavabe wrote:Any word from the Minion?![]()
![]()
![]()
(Editorial comment: she should do the data analysis in her own lab; she has the necessary software. She just does this in our lab so she can spy on us and ask inane questions.)
Still nothing from any of them regarding the manuscript.
Thanks; I thought so. I'm so over her coming to my desk to ask me to "help" her do something. The translation of "helping" her is to do it while she looks over your shoulder to make sure you do what she asked. I'm finished with "helping" her do stuff that she's too lazy to do herself.lawgrad91 wrote:Good move!ArkieDukie wrote:The Minion was in our lab for a good chunk of the day, doing data analysis. She came by my desk to ask me to "help" her calculate the value for a modification she was looking for. I referred her to the website where she could look up the number herself.Lavabe wrote:Any word from the Minion?![]()
![]()
![]()
(Editorial comment: she should do the data analysis in her own lab; she has the necessary software. She just does this in our lab so she can spy on us and ask inane questions.)
Still nothing from any of them regarding the manuscript.![]()
![]()
Here's the perfect journal for that manuscript to go in:ArkieDukie wrote:Pushy PI and The Minion met with my boss this morning. After the meeting, Pushy PI had a very loud conversation with my boss (for my benefit, I'm sure) about how optimistic he is with regard to the paper being accepted after revisions. To answer the questions about reproducibility, they're pooling old samples and re-analyzing them. Normally one would repeat the entire experiment.![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
In case I haven't mentioned it lately, I'm really glad that I'm off that manuscript.
Lavabe wrote:Here's the perfect journal for that manuscript to go in:ArkieDukie wrote:Pushy PI and The Minion met with my boss this morning. After the meeting, Pushy PI had a very loud conversation with my boss (for my benefit, I'm sure) about how optimistic he is with regard to the paper being accepted after revisions. To answer the questions about reproducibility, they're pooling old samples and re-analyzing them. Normally one would repeat the entire experiment.![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
In case I haven't mentioned it lately, I'm really glad that I'm off that manuscript.
http://www.jir.com/
Laziness would be near the top of the list. Arrogance is up there, too. But, you are correct, stupidity is at the top of the list.lawgrad91 wrote:Lavabe wrote:Here's the perfect journal for that manuscript to go in:ArkieDukie wrote:Pushy PI and The Minion met with my boss this morning. After the meeting, Pushy PI had a very loud conversation with my boss (for my benefit, I'm sure) about how optimistic he is with regard to the paper being accepted after revisions. To answer the questions about reproducibility, they're pooling old samples and re-analyzing them. Normally one would repeat the entire experiment.![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
In case I haven't mentioned it lately, I'm really glad that I'm off that manuscript.
http://www.jir.com/
![]()
What would behoove a scientist (besides stupidity) NOT to repeat the entire experiment?
We need a shin kicking smilie.ArkieDukie wrote:Okay, sending a hefty round of shin kicks and ending rant now...