Peer Reviewer Demands 'More Worms' in Every Section of Manuscript, Including Acknowledgments

A manuscript submitted to the journal Nematology has been returned to its authors with 43 reviewer comments from the anonymous Reviewer 2, each consisting solely of the instruction 'needs more nematodes,' applied uniformly to every section of the paper including the abstract, methods, results, discussion, references, and acknowledgments. The paper, titled 'Soil Mesofauna Community Responses to Agricultural Intensification in Temperate Grasslands,' already contained extensive nematode data across 14 sampling sites. 'We quantified nematode abundance, diversity, and trophic structure at every site,' said lead author Dr. Petra Rhizosphere. 'Nematodes comprise approximately 60 percent of our dataset. We have over 200 nematode-specific data points. I don't know what more this person wants.' The reviewer comments, obtained through the journal's open review pilot program, escalate in intensity throughout the document. Early annotations read simply 'needs more nematodes.' By the methods section, the reviewer has added underlining. By the discussion, capital letters appear. The comment on the acknowledgments section reads: 'NEEDS MORE NEMATODES. Why have you not acknowledged the nematodes themselves? They did the most work.' Journal editor Dr. Felix Stoma acknowledged the situation was 'unusual but not unprecedented.' 'We have a small reviewer pool,' Dr. Stoma explained. 'Reviewer 2 is a respected member of the nematological community. Their feedback, while stylistically repetitive, reflects a genuine concern that nematodes remain underrepresented in soil ecology literature. Which, to be fair, they are.' Dr. Rhizosphere has submitted a revised manuscript with an additional 3,000 words on nematode community dynamics. Reviewer 2 has responded: 'Acceptable. But could use more nematodes.'