I’m just going through some reviewer comments on a paper I have no stake in at all, and came across this gem:
The study finds support in favour of their hypothesis.
This was highlighted as a key strength of the study. Let’s not quibble about hypotheses here, but let’s focus on the explicit value for a “positive” result. This matters, because it’s peer review, and it’s the standards we have as reviewers that shape what gets published (and where). This focus on positive results does not help us move forward with actually understanding what’s going on — but then a cynic would see a quite different role for publications anyway.
Didier Ruedin 