Nonetheless, I'm not going to post the reviews of my mirror neuron critique paper. The good news is, though, that the paper is now accepted and should be appearing soon in Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. A reviewer of the paper was invited to write a rebuttal paper. I hope s/he does. It will be interested to have a public discussion on the issues.
But back to publishing reviews. Just this week I got another nasty review back on another paper, this one related to the hypothesized sensory-motor response properties of area Spt. We have been plugging away for some years now trying to pin down the response properties of Spt and exploring the similarity of this region with sensory-motor integration regions in the posterior parietal lobe. I had listed the range of findings that show parallels between Spt and parietal lobe areas. Here's a comment about our hypothesis from the reviewer:
The analogy with the inferior parietal lobule is not well supported, and its use in framing the arguments of the paper is based on a number of vague assumptions, over-generalizations, and idiosyncratic inferences about the brain that derive from studies produced virtually exclusively in the authors' laboratory.
(Oops. Did I just publish part of a review?)
We of course apologized profusely for citing our own empirical work, which is clearly inappropriate and should be strictly prohibited in scholarly publications. We make no apologies, however, for being vague, idosyncratic, over-generalizers.
So how about we start a Top Ten list of nasty review excerpts? It might be kind of entertaining. I've got two on the board already. Send them to me offline or as a comment.