Neat validation of a pattern I’ve certainly observed in my own work: the harder I have to work to get a paper through review the better the finished product (& as a corollary published versions >>>> preprints).
Naomi S. Wells
What doesn’t kill a paper can make it more highly cited. An analysis of peer-review records for thousands of papers finds that those receiving tough reviews go on to have a higher impact than those that sail through the review process. My latest story for @nature.com: www.nature.com/articles/d41...
www.nature.com
An AI-led analysis of publicly available peer-review reports links requests for major revisions with papers that end up having high impact.
