Peer Review Comments on Frankenstein’s Monster

frankenstein_pg_7

Reviewer 1: “Are the neck bolts strictly necessary? It seems that the study’s author could have substituted a lithium ion battery, or a solar panel, or perhaps a wall plug and an extension cable. Maybe even a rotation-powered generator with a large wheel and a particularly enthusiastic hamster would work. It’s a thought.

I’m also confused about the numerous scars and the decision to use visible stitching — it appears there was no plastic surgeon available to consult during assembly. Or perhaps the local drugstore was just out of gas-tank-sized jars of cocoa butter?

Furthermore, I’m not quite sure if the sample really needed to be gigantic to ensure proper construction. The author may want to review some of the recent advances in laparoscopic surgery.”

Reviewer 2: “This study is not innovative; it is a slight modification of an existing method. A pilot study for animation from dead matter has been detailed in the earlier publication ‘Genesis’ (see God, et. al.). The author touches on this work but is rather vague about citing it, though the theoretical parallels are striking.

Additionally, the author’s decision to withhold key elements of his methodology is, quite frankly, questionable. This makes reproducibility impossible and impugns the veracity and reliability of his results. It’s almost as if he didn’t want the study replicated.”

Reviewer 3: “Entirely unimpressive. This is not the monster I would have created.”

Image Source / Public Domain