Usually, the #secondrevision is the most critical round of review. At this point, you will be offering your #thirdassessment of a paper.
At this juncture, your view of the paper should be stable. The #author & #reviewteam are familiar with each other. Usually, everyone is a bit tired of the paper. Hopefully, the reviews have converged on major issues & there is some clarity as to what must be addressed.
The first assessment is about potential & the second assessment is about progress & the third assessment is about whether the paper moves forward to #publication.
Now it is time for you, the #reviewer, need to make up your mind about the paper.
So how to make up your mind?
First, read the paper. I do this with fresh eyes. So I read the paper before looking at the #reviewpackage.
Assess the paper & ask if it feels complete? Are there glaring holes in the logic? In the method?
Second, read the review package & re-read the paper.
Assess the changes & ask if the authors have made a good faith effort to address the requested changes.
Third, triangulate across your fresh read and review package.
Assess the gestalt of the paper. Did your fresh read generate new issues? How well were the existing issues addressed?
Fourth, if you are not satisfied with the current state of the paper, you have a tough decision.
Before making it, recognize that all papers require changes in the third round of the review process. The question isn't an accept or not decision; it is will the paper ever be accepted in the future.
Assess does it require modest changes? Clarification of #theory? #method? #contribution? If the answer is yes, consider continuing fishing and suggest a revision.
Assess whether this will require extensive revision. A new theory? A major data collection? If the answer is yes, it's time to cut bait and suggest a reject.
Fifth, set the paper down and take a walk. Really think about it.
As you do, keep in mind (1) the author's investment of substantial time & effort, (2) that late-round reject decisions have real-world career impact, and (3) the paper will impact future research.
Counterbalance that thinking.
Consider (1) the adverse bullwhip effects of flawed papers, (2) how substantive are the problems in the paper, and (3) the real-world impact of the paper.
If after balancing the attributes of the paper, and its implications, you are ready to write your review.
As an aside, many "academically flawed" papers have real-world impact. I tend to overlook flaws when the impact is large. I make sure the limitations are appropriate.
Finally, the third review must be direct.
If the suggestion is #reject, keep it short. Detail the big problems.
If the suggestion is #revise, offer more detail. Now is the time to offer detailed advice.
The third review is important. You need to make a decision.
I hope this helps all y’all help authors!
Comentarios