Learning to write reviews is difficult - there is a fine balance between offering feedback on ideas & wordsmithing the text.
When I first wrote reviews, I would read the paper, annotate it, distill out the big points, then include dozens of ‘ticky tacky’ points on grammar and style.
The review would quickly escalate to three to five single spaced pages. With classic comments like ‘it is method, not methodology’ … or I would suggest authors read seminal philosophy of science papers from semina.
looking back, I feel sorry for the authors who I now know I insulted - bc while thorough - I’m not convinced my comments improved the paper.
After being punished by reviews that remind me of my own, I eventually grew out of the micromanage & show what I know phase of reviewing.
These days I focus on the ideas and the contribution in the early rounds & then identifying only the more glaring problems in late rounds.
Where once reviews were three to five pages, they have shrunk to two to three pages of fairly concise comments on challenges and plausible options for solutions.
There is much to recommend about writing a concise review - it forces you to think through what is really important to you, what is necessary, and what is fluff.
A concise review also focuses authors more effectively - rather than worrying about the small stuff (such as comma use, ampersands, and so on) - it lets them focus on solving the wicked problems that seem to come up in the peer review process.
A concise review is also easier to respond to - when you receive a 30 page review package (yes, this happens) - it is easy to get lost in the comments - and even easier to insert contradictory comments.
As an editor, consistent with these comments, I have found authors do a better job addressing big picture problems, when the review package is more parsimonious.
I have often wondered why journal editors increasingly limit the pages that authors can submit - but do not limit the pages that reviewers share.
Why?
Because beyond the advantages outlined above, limiting the number of pages also limits the number of ticky-tacky comments on how to title a table, the number of decimal places, the fonts, and more.
As an author, I find these overly zealous, punctilious comments discouraging & often inappropriate.
For example, does a paper really need to be written in American English or would the Queen’s English do just as well?
Frankly, when authors feel beat down by long review packages, they second guess their decisions, lose their confidence in the Tebow process, and do not do their best work.
So rather than write long & detailed reviews, I encourage my students to write short & big picture reviews - and to leave to the authors - decisions on readability.
Bigger is not always better!
Kommentare