After reviewing a paper, you will receive a courtesy copy of the review package that includes the editor’s decision, the editor’s advice, & reviewer comments.
If you are like me, you read it. BC you want to learn what other people thought or know if the SE cites your ideas.
Once in a while, you will find another reviewer or even the editor will make a request that is either unreasonable or contradictory or incorrect.
If you are like me, this will bother you bc you care that an author is given a fair shake.
What should you do?
First, box up your irritation.
Disagreements & competing opinions are the heart of the peer-review process. If there were no conflicting opinions, there would be no need to do the research - right?
Second, quell the impulse to contact the editor.
If the paper is rejected, it’s rarely just for one reason.
If the paper is given a revision, the authors likely will have a chance to respond & they may say exactly what you need to see said.
Third, wait for the revised paper.
After evaluating the paper & response, you may realize you were wrong. If so, you will be glad you did not kick up a fuss.
If not, you can address the problematic comments either in your review, where the authors & offending reviewer will see it or in the confidential comments.
As you decide how to reply, remember that a measured tone is usually best, so take a more measured tone in the public comments and save the sharper tone for the private comments.
You do the authors no favors by fighting with another reviewer. It is confusing.
Fourth, if you opt to politely disagree in the shared comments, back it up with citations and monitor your tone.
If the issue is the method, document the concern and explain why your approach could lead to a more fruitful outcome.
If the issue is the theory, explain how an alternative approach is more faithful to the theory or better extends the theory.
If the issue is the contribution, clearly identify the concern, why the contribution is not what one would hope for, and how to fix it, If possible.
Note here. I am not suggesting arguing, I’m suggesting explaining and illustrating - again, arguments between reviewers do not help authors.
Fifth, if you opt for private comments, you still need to back it up, but the tone need not be as constructive; you can more directly point out problems in the reviewer comment, esp. if it’s about the method.
As a senior editor, I appreciate the two-pronged approach - bc it helps the authors & provides necessary information for making a good decision on the paper.
Remember, your job is to help authors navigate the first (https://lnkd.in/eKBSsvKH) or second (https://lnkd.in/ghrX5kJS) round of review. Fights between reviewers do not help realize that goal, so be measured as you push back against misplaced comments.
I hope this helps all y’all help authors!
Comments