While satisfied with the revisions, a reviewer suggested rejecting the paper because they were not pleased with the grammatical errors in the response document.
While the point is well-taken, we could have edited the response more carefully; however, when did a few typos in a response document merit rejection?
It should not.
Thankfully, the editor agreed.
The focus of a review should be on the article - its merits - its rigor - and its relevance.
The response document can help you see those elements - but it does not define whether they exist.
We all need to step back and remember that research papers are written to share ideas, build knowledge, and offer insight to applied communities.
What to do?
Read the paper first, assess its contribution, then review how well the comments were addressed.
By first making a big-picture assessment, you will likely develop a clear picture of the paper's contribution.
That way reviewers keep an eye on the big picture and don't get lost in the small details.
By doing so, they will be positioned to offer stronger feedback and help papers make stronger contributions to our intellectual communities and practice!
Let's build a better academia!
P.S. The image adds a little levity to a serious topic.
Comments