2023-01-16 18:00:27
2023-01-16 18:00:27
2022-12-18 14:30:30
3543343
Content warning: peer review in academia
Just read "The case for doing less in our peer reviews" by @katederickson
https://doi.org/10.1177/02637758221142339
Good thinking and important questions there, recommended reading. It surely contrasts with the inner desire to be generous in providing constructive inputs in peer review, the feeling that one should do more than just saying "nah, evidence not really strong enough for that argument".
My feeling is that generous feedback would be welcome and great *if* the relationship between author and peer reviewer was more equal and open. As things stand, the author *needs* to get the article published, and has all incentives to do what is necessary to get it through... which are often not aligned with openly engaging with generous comments.
So what's the way forward? I'd suppose that if this is the way forward, then it would be up to journal editors to be much more specific in detailing what kind of review they expect and welcome, and what kind of comments are not only not required, but actively, kindly, discouraged.
As a reviewer (mostly) for area studies journals, I now feel more clearly that I am probably given too much freedom to interpret what good peer review is.
All things considered, being less generous may mean being more helpful. And of course, always be kind!
Thanks again to @katederickson for the thoughtful article!
#academia #peerreview
https://doi.org/10.1177/02637758221142339
Good thinking and important questions there, recommended reading. It surely contrasts with the inner desire to be generous in providing constructive inputs in peer review, the feeling that one should do more than just saying "nah, evidence not really strong enough for that argument".
My feeling is that generous feedback would be welcome and great *if* the relationship between author and peer reviewer was more equal and open. As things stand, the author *needs* to get the article published, and has all incentives to do what is necessary to get it through... which are often not aligned with openly engaging with generous comments.
So what's the way forward? I'd suppose that if this is the way forward, then it would be up to journal editors to be much more specific in detailing what kind of review they expect and welcome, and what kind of comments are not only not required, but actively, kindly, discouraged.
As a reviewer (mostly) for area studies journals, I now feel more clearly that I am probably given too much freedom to interpret what good peer review is.
All things considered, being less generous may mean being more helpful. And of course, always be kind!
Thanks again to @katederickson for the thoughtful article!
#academia #peerreview
Lo, thar be cookies on this site to keep track of your login. By clicking 'okay', you are CONSENTING to this.
Nathan Schneider
in reply to Giorgio Comai • • •Somewhat more structured review templates could be useful in making the process both easier and more constructive.
I have also appreciated journals that sign the reviewer's name to an article they have recommended for acceptance. That both adds some incentive via credit and some accountability.