Bit of both. Neuroskeptic offers:
In the spirit of the 9 Circles of Scientific Hell, and inspired by the evidence showing that scientific peer reviewers agree only slightly more often than they would by chance, here’s a handy tool for randomly generating your review.
How’s this one:
4. Cite Me, Me, Me!: The problem with this paper is that it doesn’t reference the right previous work… yours. Unless the authors change it to cite everything you’ve written in the past 10 years, they can get lost. If they do, the paper will be immediately accepted – to reject it would harm your citation count.
Some readers may wish to try it on their work in progress or on this week’s grocery flyer.
Hat tip: Stephanie West Allen at Brains on Purpose
More peer review stories:
Everyone hates the blogosphere and loves peer review, right, but …
Early coffee: Traction, retraction, and self-plagiarism (when scientists retread what they should retire)
Peer review: have we run out of polish for the iron rice bowls?