Right, the key question is whether one can follow what happened. For example:
“Then we take solution (CuSO4) mixes with compound (10 mL) wait for ten minutes and spectra produced (Fig 4)” is horrendous but understandable. It passes. Whereas,
“CuSO4 compound 10 mL mix previous CuSO4 solution. Ten-minute spectra in Fig 4.” is gibberish. It fails. Even if this were the cure to cancer, there is not enough information to try this at home.
Those were made-up examples, but I’ve reviewed their equivalents.
Requests for rewrites are common, but more often they are based on the science than the grammar. A minor revision could request more information regarding the methods (e.g. “Which model spectrophotometer did you use?”), and a major revision could request an extra experiment (e.g. “Does this work with 5 mL instead of 10 mL?)”.
Looks like he’s resigning as Dean, but keeping his position as a professor after taking a four-month administrative leave. Seems like a reasonable response to what occurred.
Man, the guy was nailed before he even finished the speech:
Students were, at first, impressed by the inspirational speech about a doctor’s never ending quest for knowledge. But a few students knew something was amiss when Dr. Baker referenced the “velluvial matrix,” a term the original author invented and included in his convocation address to students at Stanford University in California last year.
The speech was published in The New Yorker magazine last year and many had read it. One graduate said his brother found the original speech on The New Yorker website during the banquet and was following along with Dr. Baker word for word.
