My team recently submitted a fifth revision.
In early rounds, I was ticked - we had to collect more data, run more analyses, and prove that a well-known problem existed.
Such nonsense!
Academic reviewers need to get out & talk to the world! But that’s a different post!
In this round, I was grateful - we were asked to tell the story in our voice and clarify minor statistical issues.
After the submission, I reflected on the paper’s progress.
An editor rarely encourages you to find your voice.
More often, they ask you to hark or p-hack your way to a version of the truth.
I wish more editors were like this one - open-minded!
But really, why is it necessary to ask authors to find their voice in late rounds?
Simply put, too many reviewers have moved from providing feedback to acting as co-authors.
This habit needs to stop.
Reviewers can provide feedback and let authors tell their stories.
How?
First, remember it is the author’s story to tell. If you want another story, reject the paper & suggest they write a different paper - while doing so!
You do not do authors favors by asking for a new story in each round of review.
Second, beware harking. It is one thing to ask an author to run extra analysis. It’s another to ask them to write new hypotheses.
Don’t put authors in bad positions by asking them to fabricate hypotheses based on the analysis or data in a submission.
Third, be mindful of the round of revision. Once you are past the second round, your job is to improve the paper.
Absent a fatal error in method, read the review package first, and ask did they respond to the gestalt? And if they did, set aside your reservations and help them further attend to the macro issues.
Fourth, give up your prejudices. I know one reviewer who rejects all papers that don’t cite their dated work. Your work and your methods are not the last words on a topic.
Be open-minded to different ways to tackle a question. If you have a concern, and it’s not fatal, ask the authors to consider adding a limitation.
Fifth, do your background work. I recently had a reviewer challenge whether a problem was real. I figure if the CDC calls it a problem, it probably is real.
Before asking for a paper to conform to canon, take some time to search and see if the problem is seen as such by practice.
Then, see if your field has really studied it.
If it is novel, help them position the paper to show the novelty, not its congruence, with what we already know.
I could go on. But, it’s my fifth revision, and five tips seem about right.
But, as a parting shot, remember the editor leads the team - your job is to follow their lead and help authors tell their truth - not to tell yours!
It may seem that I am grumbling, but I am not; I am grateful to everyone who helps with peer review.
Together, we can build a better academe!
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jason-thatcher-0329764_reviewer2-revision-mentoring-activity-6923008529943437312-vXRb?utm_source=linkedin_share&utm_medium=member_desktop_web
Comments