It rather depends on the criticism to be honest. I may not be the norm, because besides writing scientific papers I'm also a literary author, so criticism is expected in both sides. I do recall one instance when I was studying International Relations that really infuriated me.

​

I wrote an essay based partially in Giovanni Sartori and partially in Dan Nimmo about the key role of mass media as a propagandistic tool, in the downfall of populist governments in Argentina and Brazil, and the subsequent rise to prominence of right-wing ideologies in both countries. At the time I was a TA in Qualitative Methodology of Investigation, and the professors were part of an investigative committee that publishes a monthly scientific review. My article had received good references from other of my professors, including a professor of Political Communication. However, upon presenting it to them to see if they'd publish it, they didn't provide constructive criticism, nor critiques about the content, the structure, even the grammatical phrasing of the paper. Instead, their only reason for not publishing it was that it wasn't "left-leaning enough".

​

I understand that social sciences have an underlying political ideology, and that many publications follow an ideological pattern. But damn was I angered by that response. I told them that, since I am a post-anarchist, I didn't have any intention of making my article left-leaning, because I don't lean left. I immediately stopped being a TA for them.