Some true snippets that I’ve got from my dear scientific peers during the highly esteemed review process of my papers.

The changes in the manuscript are minimal and so is, consequently, the change in the opinion of the editors.

Editorial assessment (2023)

This manuscript is mostly about elementary statistics, and I find it of little relevance to any real problem. […] Ironically, taking this into account […] would also make it clear that it is trivial.

Editorial assessment (2023)

In my opinion, the calculational part is correct. But is it relevant?
I do not think so.

External expert (2023)

[Strasberg] advocates for more consistency with traditional thermodynamic notions […]. Unfortunately, this type of argumentation always has to fall short. […] [This] only expresses a lack of historic awareness of the author.

Editorial board member (2023)

The authors substantially edited and extended their manuscript [and] while the manuscript has become substantially longer it did not gain much in clarity and rigor.

Referee report (2023)

While the manuscript is technically correct, the interpretation of the results is overblown.

Referee report (2021)

The Authors seem quite unfamiliar with quantum foundations, and given the mess it is in the Referee can hardly recommend they spend much time there. […] There are essentially no results which are “independent of any interpretation of quantum theory”. […] The discipline of Quantum Foundations is in a miserable mess.

Referee report (2021)

Unless the authors can make significant changes to the manuscript, I
see no possibility that this manuscript could appear as a tutorial
article. […] [That the entropy production describes the increase in entropy of the universe] is a classical result. It does not mean that it must also be true in the quantum case.

Referee report (2020)

[The paper] is logically weak, incomplete and inconconclusive.

Referee report (2020)

Their presentation does not rise to the generality which would be required to meet the objections of someone of Prof Hänggi’s stature.

Referee report (2020)

Strasberg spends quite some effort to correctly and consistently define all the energies and entropies […], but there is no particular insights to be gained here apart from how to do it properly in general.

Referee report (2019)

I can only explain it such that the authors intentionally ignore the relevant literature for the purpose of better selling their new scientific results. For me this represents a clear case of severe scientific misconduct.

Referee report (2016)

I think this paper will not generate many citations.

External expert (2016)