I was asked how to write a good review.
The question, from a #PhDstudent, made me smile because my understanding of reviewing has evolved.
Early in my career, I wrote long detailed #reviews.
I would print the paper, mark up key points, mark up grammar errors, add my thoughts in the margins, then add my thoughts on the motivation, method, limitations, or contributions.
I would write five to six pages of big, little, & micro comments.
In hindsight, I'm sure that my overly detailed reviews undermined the quality of some papers & of the overall review process.
Why?
First, when I received similar reviews, I bitterly resented the feedback.
I resented the pedantic comments on my writing style. I resented being asked to use a "gap motivation," something that I loathe. I resented receiving ticky-tacky-style points.
Second, when asked to test "alternative hypotheses," I worried about harking.
Kerr (1998) defined #HARKing as "presenting a post hoc hypothesis in the introduction of a research report as if it were an a priori hypothesis."
I resented the requests to engage in ethical misconduct.
Third, when the comments became too detailed, I felt overwhelmed.
The wealth of big, little, & micro comments discouraged me from revising the paper. It took the joy out of the research.
So what to do?
In mid-career, I use a less detailed, more mindful approach.
I still print the paper & mark it up. Now, rather than simply transcribing my comments, I sort through & prioritize them.
By doing so, I can write shorter, more helpful reviews - usually no more than three pages.
My process?
First, I make a macro assessment of whether the paper can be fixed. If it can't, I write a short one to two-page #review explaining significant issues in the paper.
Long, negative reviews are like throwing extra dirt on a grave. They take up time & discourage authors.
Second, I sort through my comments & identify what must be addressed.
If the sum of comments is more than three pages, I recommend #rejection.
It's not fair to ask authors to write entirely new papers.
Third, if the significant comments sum to a few pages, I tighten them, offer suggestions for improvement, & offer a #recommendation.
I do not offer little or micro comments. Why not?
I now know authors should write in their own voice. Micro-managing takes that away from them.
If writing is terrible, I'll insert a #privatecomment to the editor asking that the #authors use a #copyeditor, but leave it to the editor to decide if it is necessary.
As an aside, copyediting is always necessary. I have every paper edited.
These days, I've noticed that authors write stronger #revisions. They get the feedback they need & they have the freedom to write the paper they want to write.
More on second reviews here: https://lnkd.in/e2tCGnvi
Comments