Ever felt frustrated by reviewers dumbly criticizing a paper your peers in the discipline judge as good, treating it like it was the worst piece of text ever even imagined by a creature in the universe? Or perhaps you had the hater reviewer who just destroys all of your paper mentioning all kinds of alien arguments which have nothing to do with the scientific quality of your paper? Or maybe you already had the sniper who just reviews your paper in 2 or 3 lines just mentioning he didn't like the way you asked the research question and thinks your experiment is not one. Well, I found a post summarizing 9 stereotypes of reviewers you will find on your academic path, if you submit often enough. I personally found the post well written and very much enjoyable, as it made me reflect on my own experiences with reviewers, and the funny stories about reviewers virtually every researcher I met has told me about.
Aaaaaaaah, if you didn't experience what a PhD is, you haven't really lived :-)