ChronicleofHIgherEd GottaBeSoMean

8/27/13 Why You Gotta Be So Mean?
- Do Your Job Better - The Chronicle of Higher Education

chronicle.com/article/Why-You-Gotta-Be-So-Mean-/140469/ 1/17
Do Your Job Better
July 22, 2013
Why You Gotta Be So Mean?
By Erik Schneiderhan
This summer I took my 11-year-old daughter and her friend to a
Taylor Swift concert. There were screaming teens, a boy-band
warm-up group, and production values that felt like I had stepped
into a music video. It was exactly what I had expected, with one
exception.
During a pause in the music, Swift told us how when she was
younger, she had received her share of bullying at school. She'd
always thought that kind of stuff stopped when you grew up; turns
out it doesn't. But we can change that, she said. How? By being
kind, she told us, before launching into her hit song, "Why You
Gotta Be So Mean?"
The next morning, I received an e-mail from a journal editor
informing me that my recent submission was a "revise and
resubmit." I clicked on the link to the first review and began to read.
With each sentence, I felt myself shrinking in stature. My prose was
"passable." I bordered on being "uninformed." The reviewer, in
response to the question of "significance of content," checked
"low" (the worst one). I had also failed to meet "minimum
standards of competency in history and philosophy," which is not
good if you are writing for an interdisciplinary journal in the social
sciences.
None of the reviewer's comments were helpful in guiding me on
how to make the article better. And there was a snarky undercurrent
in the review's tone that just made me feel bad. The second review
of my submission was much more positiveboth constructive and
8/27/13 Why You Gotta Be So Mean? - Do Your Job Better - The Chronicle of Higher Education
encouraging. But I still felt bad.
As I sat at my computer, feeling low, I thought back to the concert
and Taylor Swift's song. Ever since I started my academic career,
I've been telling myself that the review process would get better
once I "grew up" and became a faculty member. It hasn't. And I am
not alone. In my department, we often swap stories about
unbelievably nasty comments from reviewers. It is fun in the sense
that everyone can chime in, but disheartening when we realize how
pervasive this "mean" business really is.
Why are some reviewers so mean? And perhaps more important,
what can and should be done about it? Swift offers a theory on the
motives of mean people: "I bet you got pushed around. Somebody
made you cold."
In other words, reviews are payback time. What goes around comes
around, and it feels good to be the one on top. Perhaps that is part
of the explanation. But I have a couple more theories.
My first theory: Reviewing is an anonymous act. Deindividuation
theory holds that anonymity unlocks the worst in all of us. (You
might have heard about the famous Milgram and Zimbardo
experiments. Scary stuff.) In current parlance, when we get a chance
to be anonymous, the troll comes out.
My second theory has to do with journal editors. Simply put, some
editors are too timid. They desperately need reviewers and do not
want to risk shrinking the pool of available free labor. No reviewers
means no reviews, which in turn means no articles. Or maybe the
editors don't get paid enough (if at all) to deal with conflict so they
don't say a word when they see that a reviewer has been
unnecessarily cruel and mean-spirited. They just pass the review
on, at best using a kind-hearted letter to point to the reviewer's
substantive points while ignoring the cheap shots.
Those of you who have done some reviewing might be thinking:
What about the authors? Maybe they shouldn't send in garbage!
In sociology, we call that blaming the victim. Don't do it. Editors
have a responsibility to keep incomprehensible, ridiculous
Let's make the process transparent. Once the final decision has been
made on a manuscript, why not reveal the names of reviewers, at least
submissions away from reviewers. It's called a bench rejection.
Those pieces that make it to a reviewer's inbox presumably have
some redeeming qualities, even if they, ultimately, aren't enough to
warrant publication. A submission that makes it past editors may
still have poor grammar, gaps in the literature review (gasp!),
wrongheaded arguments, faulty methods, the list goes on. But none
of those things are license for you as a reviewer to be a jerk.
I know all too well the feeling of frustration when you realize the
paper you are reviewing is an absolute train wreck. But I also know
the feelings of jubilation and renewed purpose that come from
being the recipient of constructive comments.
Some academics see reviewing as a privilege and an honor to be
respected. They view it as an opportunity to teach. My first sole-
authored journal submission was rejected. But one of the reviewers
gave me 10 single-spaced pages of comments, with a very positive
message: I had done some good work, it just needed more work.
That review gave me the courage to continue to send out my
writing, and the substance of the review had a major influence on
the ideas in my dissertation project.
The act of reviewing holds out the potential to nurture and teach.
Being gracious doesn't mean being a pushover. We can still be firm,
and maintain standards. But as my mother always says, "Kill 'em
with kindness."
If we imagine that each paper we review is a first-time submission
by a scared, intimidated student, that might help curb the mean
stuff. Or not. We might also simply try to be the better person, so to
speak. As Swift sings, "But the cycle ends right now. 'Cause you
can't lead me down that road."
I am a bit more cynical than she is. I don't think being more mindful
will work. In fact, I am sure that many of the real meanies don't even
realize that they are acting that way. If you don't know your
shortcomings, how can you change? What is needed is a more
aggressive effort to reform the review process. I have a few ideas:
for those who have tenure? Being forced to look one's potential object of
scorn in the eye at a future conference might eliminate the worst and
most uncalled-for comments.
Edit out the mean stuff. Editors: Is it really that scary to ask someone to
alter their tone? Why not do some editing of reviews?
Advisers and tenured faculty members: Speak up. Instead of patting the
back of the graduate student who just got a scathing review (and might
be crying in your office), why not write to the journal editor and point out
that a little more sensitivity in delivering a negative review never hurt
anyone? And if you have tenure and one of your manuscripts got a really
nasty review, write to the editor and politely point out your concerns.
Shame the editorial boards. Imagine a Wiki with a section for each
journal. One could anonymously post mean quotes from reviews. That
way, over time we might begin to see if there is a concentration of the
mean stuff at particular journals. I can't imagine any member of an
editorial board would feel good about her journal being on the Top 10
Most Mean list.
Model good behavior. When you write your next review, go out of your
way to be gracious and nurturing. Try to build people up rather than
knocking them down. It might make you feel good, and it will show the
recipient that good-quality reviews need not skimp on being nice.
Teach the next generation. As faculty members, we have a chance to
show our students how to do it right. We can show them that being
snarky is not the same as being smart. We can explain to them what
really matters in a paper, and how to avoid sweating the small stuff. We
can teach them why forcing our own project agendas on the manuscripts
we review is unacceptable.
The next time you are asked to write a review, check with the editor
to see if you can have one of your graduate students write it along
with you. I've done that with students, and it has been a great
learning experience on both sides.
Those are just a few preliminary thoughts, and I am sure that
readers will have better ones. My point here is not to encourage
mediocre work with falsely positive reviews but to put an end to
reviews that are nasty without reason, critical without being
constructive, discouraging where they should be encouraging.
Erik Schneiderhan is an assistant professor of sociology at the
University of Toronto.
Comments
Powered by DISQUS
with your Chronicle account: Don't have an account? Create one now.
Or log in using one of these alternatives:
Log in to post
The fact is that there is a major difference in constructive criticism as the author makes clear
in his piece and nasty, callous mean -spirited criticism. The former should be welcomed and
encouraged if needed. The latter is uncalled for and should not be tolerated and outright
dismissed and rejected.
64 people liked this.
LIKE
This comment was flagged for review.
No. I missed that one.
1 person liked this.
LIKE
Sometimes reviewers have something to prove, much like the fresh-out-of-grad-school
assistant professors who are far too harsh when grading for a graduate seminar. I think a
seasoned reviewer, just like a seasoned teacher, is well aware of the limits of junior scholars.
Further, they're well aware of the limits of their own colleagues, and so, should they find
themselves seeing that someone does something better than they do, well, they might just
use their position of power to exploit those limits to prove themselves and boost their ego.
Careers rest in the hands of reviewers. Just like any position of power, it's prone to abuse.
And in small fields, you as a reviewer tend to have a very good idea of who has written what,
even if it's a blind process.
LIKE
As a reviewer and assuming this is a blind review process, I have no way of knowing
whether or not the manuscript I received to review is by a junior scholar.
Add a comment
Showing 40 of 106 comments
Sort by
Oldest first
Follow comments: by e-mail by RSS
Real-time updating is paused. (Resume)
aloofbooks 1 month ago
abby725 1 month ago in reply to aloofbooks
aloofbooks 1 month ago in reply to abby725
withatwist 1 month ago
midwestacademic 1 month ago in reply to withatwist
LIKE
One of the reasons I (and many of my senior colleagues) rarely submit to
journals anymore, but contribute to edited volumes, is that I have all
too often had nasty and unhelpful reviews, which have asked
for different research project rather than engaging in the one I was doing. I think this is
partly because my work is often on the border of fields, crossing between. But for whatever
reason, it isn't helpful.
As a reviewer, I try to make my negative reviews constructive -- to the extent that I sit on a
draft for several days and change the tone. But that takes time - as everyone knows perhaps
our most valuable commodity. What the journal editors can't control for is the person who
submits to multiple journals on the same project. I realized at one point that I was almost
certain I had read a related article for another journal, and since both had the same failings,
it was much harder to be constructive. Now, I know (because it's what I do) that people
routinely submit to multiple places before doing significant revisions; but in small fields,
you may have the same reviewers. I do not always sign my reviews, but I often do. And on
several occasions I have made myself known to the author, and in some cases that has led to
really useful ongoing conversation.
LIKE
In my field, most journals make explicit in their written policies that manuscripts may
not be submitted to multiple outlets. Nor may it have been published elsewhere. If this
was also the case in your situation, I believe as a reviewer you should have brought this
to the attention of the journal editor. I am sure s/he would have greatly appreciated it.
LIKE
The author makes some points that reviewers and editors should reflect upon. But what is
entirely missing is that reviewers and editors are deluged with badly written papers that
should never have been submitted. Sometimes this submission stems from the navet of
authors, but often comes from their hope that what they know is inadequate will somehow
slip through the peer review process. Contrary to what one of the commentators states, it is
generally bad practice to ignore negative reviews. Author should at least reflect on what they
did to elicit these comments and if they think they were misunderstood, how they can avoid
it in a revision.
I am an academic editor for a journal that is dedicated to as much as possible all data be
made available, including null findings and replications. A paper does not have to be
perfect, but authors need to be honest in identifying limitations. I spend a lot of time at the
journal's website, commiserating with other academic editors about how authors abuse our
receptivity to considering a wider range of papers.
A lot of authors would be better off engaging their inner critics in deciding whether
something should be submitted before risking exposure to the outer critics. i.e., reviewers
and editors. I suspect a lot of manuscripts with them never be submitted in the form that
they would otherwise be sent out.
susanda 1 month ago
midwestacademic 1 month ago in reply to susanda
jcoyne 1 month ago
LIKE
I agree with you completely but also see the three sides of this that all need to be
balanced. First, as you stated, there is alot of dreck submitted to journals. The author of
this piece says "that is what bench rejections are for". However, in my role as a journal
editor, I very seldom use bench rejection, one reason is that I often do not have time to
completely read the paper prior to sending it out to peer review. At least in the
sciences, many journals use volunteer editors who have full academic responsibilities.
If I did a "pre-review" on everything I am assigned to, time to first decision would be
greatly increased. Second, the reviewer "stating the honest truth" comes across to the
paper's author as mean spiritness because "they just called my baby ugly". As a journal
editor,I see the problem resulting in terms of reviewers being unwilling to bluntly come
out and say that a bad paper sucks. This leads to the very frustrating situation for
authors who receive vague, but seemingly positive reviews followed by a rejection from
the editor. Think of this from the perspective of grading your students. You have to be
willing to give Ds and Fs when deserved. A student calling such grades "mean" comes
across as immature. One complaint of the author of this piece was that one of the
reviewers marked several things in his paper as "poor" and suggested that the reviewer
was "mean". Guess what, the reviewer was not being "mean", I bet that they honestly
thought the paper was poor.... Alot of the poor papers which are actually published in
the literature (yes we have all read them) are the result of reviewers not being critical
enough. Third, is the sentiment of the author of this piece. Yes, it is very frustrating
and demoralizing to be still getting negative paper reviews after getting your Ph.D and
being a newly minted assistant professor. However, it is even more tiresome to still get
such paper or grant reviews sometimes when one is a full professor who has thirty years
in the profession and a solid reputation in the field. That said, at least in the sciences,
peer review is essential to ensure that contributions to the literature are as useful as
possible. We all get too enamored with our work and really can not see its flaws...
Once I put the "mean" reviews in a drawer for a few days, I can calm down and address
them, and even in most cases can see that the suggestions/comments really do make
the paper better and thus were not "mean" at all.
LIKE
'Once I put the "mean" reviews in a drawer for a few days, I can calm
down and address them, and even in most cases can see that the
suggestions/comments really do make the paper better and thus were not
"mean" at all.'
But this is not the kind of "mean" the author is discussing. The author refers to
nasty comments unaccompanied by any suggestions for improvement. Sure,
some authors take offense at constructive criticism, but that's not what the post is
about -- it's about people who use their position as anonymous gatekeepers to
unfairly attack an author for any number of reasons not related to the actual work
under consideration.
LIKE
graddirector 1 month ago in reply to jcoyne
minnesotan 1 month ago in reply to graddirector
blackbart 1 month ago in reply to minnesotan
...and yet, none of the examples proffered by the author ARE "nasty
comments." We have no reason to believe that the paradigmatic examples
offered in the article ARE "unfair attacks." This leads me (and others,
apparently) to believe that what the author thinks to be "mean comments"
are in fact pointed criticisms rubbing up against an author's thin skin. The
two aren't the same.
(Yes, I see the irony in criticizing this particular article's argument.)
LIKE
Agree entirely with Blackbart. I have been an academic scientist for a
long time, and am extensively involved in review of others as both a
grant reviewer and a journal editor. I will repeat that I really can not
think of any actually personal or gratuitously nasty attacks in anything I
have every received or seen written in a review. The fact is that getting
bad grades happens, and it is unpleasant, particularly when, as
academics we feel we should be beyond getting bad grades. Further,
another commenter made the point that in the end, the reviewer is not
really responsible for mentoring the author, they are responsible for
telling the editor whether the paper should be published or not and why.
While it would be nice if the reviewer took the time to give detailed
critcisms, it is not a requirement, particularly for papers that the
reviewer feels are beyond redemption.
The extreme of this is found in reviews for NIH grants. A few years ago,
the "reinventing peer review" initiative was trying to streamline grant
review and get more people willing to do it. This led, among other
things, to a stated policy that it is not the reviewer's job to mentor the
author, and written detailed suggestions for the improvement of a
proposal are actively discouraged. It is the reviewer's job to tell the folks
responsible for funding decisions whether or not the proposal is worth
doing. Making this determination and giving the author suggestions for
improvement are not the same thing.
LIKE
Of course you can't have thin skin in this business, and honest
critique is not mean. Some reviewers go out of their way to demean
and belittle, though.
You both assume that A) nobody ever acts unreasonably and drops
some thinly veiled (or thickly unveiled) insults in their reviews, and
B) that all criticism is warranted and directed at the work, not the
author. I have personally seen cases of both assumptions being
wrong, in my own reviews and in those of my colleagues. I have
even received a scathing review once of someone else's article on a
wildly different subject. That, or the person reading my article was
on some strong mind-altering substances -- s/he didn't even have
the right century, let alone the right book my article was about.
There is no reason you need to insult people or belittle their work to
write a critique, and you aren't clever by masking insults in the old
graddirector 1 month ago in reply to blackbart
minnesotan 1 month ago in reply to graddirector
fashioned Oxbridge double-negative backhanded compliment form
(e.g. "This work was not uninteresting per se, but..."). On multiple
occasions I've even seen blatant attacks: "the author is an idiot; she
did not reference my obscure book about X, which is bound to take
over the world, if only someone would buy a copy!" If you haven't
seen stuff like this, then you're lucky.
More likely, you're just sticking up for what you consider is your
right to continue anonymously bashing other people while trying to
shape everyone else's work to fit your own paradigm. That's what
much peer review consists of these days: "here's how I would have
done this project," or "I don't like this project, so here's why it's not
the completely unrelated project that I would have done." It makes
me awfully thankful for the reviewers who tell you what needs fixing,
rather than what an idiot you are.
LIKE
Here is the problem from my humble perspective. As a
reviewer for a major clinical research journal, I have reviewed a
number of submissions of original research that, in my
opinion, are totally irrelevant to the clinical practitioner. The
research may have been conducted adequately, the paper may
be well written, but the purpose for conducting the study is
lacking relevance. I see these submissions as research done
solely for the purpose of getting published. Now, while I admit
that I get frustrated with what I see as "fluff" pieces. I do try to
be tactful in my comments, but when I have to comment on
usefulness to practitioners (which is, in fact, one of the
criterion), there is no easy way to say that I believe (and I do
qualify my comments by taking full responsibility) that the
study itself has minimal, if any, practical value. There is no way
to give constructive criticism when the only way to improve
the paper is to do a totally different study. Obviously, it is too
late for that, and the author(s)' academic mentors should have
been responsible for not only helping them with their work
quality, but determining appropriate research to focus their
time and efforts on.
I recently reviewed a qualitative study of 8 patients taking a
certain by mouth medication for a certain disease. While the
specific disease incidence and mortality rates are very high, the
people taking this particular drug are NOT typical of the
patient developing this disease. In fact, patients who benefit
from the drug have a very specific mutation causing the
disease, and this mutation occurs in a small group of patients
without the risk factor most responsible for the disease in the
general population. (as you can see, I am trying to disguise the
disease and treatment studied). My main concern is that this
study was for theory development, and the name of this theory
was "the lived experience of patients with disease X". Since the
study consisted of a few patients very atypical for disease X,
without the complications of the primary risk factor for disease
X, I felt that the value of the findings to clinicians was minimal,
if any, and certainly did not describe the "lived experience" of
people with this disease (a disease, by the way, that I specialize
in). My comments were as tactful as I could make them
without coming right out and saying, "why on earth would you
radavidson 1 month ago in reply to minnesotan
waste time doing this study?".
Although the author of this column refers to "mean" comments
by reviewers, and the lack of constructive criticism, the vast
majority of studies that I see without what the submitter would
perceive as constructive criticism are the type I've described
above, where no amount of constructive criticism would
improve the paper. I am comforted by the fact that I am not the
sole reviewer for a study, in the event that my practical
approach is too limited. In that case, the other reviewers may
see value in the research, and therefore provide nice, helpful
suggestions.
LIKE
Is this, perhaps, more prevalent in some fields than others? Because while
I've had irritating and frustrating reviews, ones I thought were inaccurate, and
others over-focused on irrelevant details, I've never once had a "mean" review
in the sense of providing no information and using personal attacks. In fact, I
can only think of even hearing about a single case where this was true -- and
the reason I know about it was precisely because it was so rare that everyone
gossiped about how immature and unprofessional it was.
Like Graddirector, I'm in the physical sciences. This article was written about
the social sciences. Can some people who are actually involved in the social
sciences tell me if personal attacks and uninformative reviews are common
there?
LIKE
Here's a good example from the humanities: a reviewer told me that my
manuscript read like a bad undergraduate sociology term paper or even
journalistic writing [i.e. the more accessible, the more to be snubbed?].
The other two reviewers had favorable reviews but it was this review that
sunk my revise and resubmit. The tone throughout was burning and
caustic. My advisor agreed that it was completely uncalled for. It all goes
back to how there are a considerable amount of sociopaths in academia
and people with fragile egos who feel they have something to prove. But
trust me, this does happen.
LIKE
Youch! That's astonishing.
Don't take this the wrong way, but I'm really glad I don't submit to
the same journals you have to!
LIKE
Reythia 1 month ago in reply to minnesotan
S.W. 3 weeks ago in reply to Reythia
Reythia 3 weeks ago in reply to S.W.
I routinely referee papers, and have a few thoughts on the matter.
1. Any criticism of a paper is usually defined as "mean". Is there something wrong with the
following? "The author clearly does not understand the literature." I wrote something like
that on a recent referee report. The author didn't cite several closely related papers, and of
the ones he/she did cite, the summary was completely wrong for two of them - one that I
wrote. It is the truth that is mean.
2. Some referees are young. They're busy, they haven't read many reviews of their own work,
and they don't realize how hard it is to write a critical review without having the tone get out
of control. If authors want referees to give them the benefit of the doubt, they should do the
same for unpaid referees.
3. If you're recommending that a paper be rejected, it makes sense that you'll spend most of
your time explaining the problems, as opposed to, "I think it is not worthy of publication,
but here are some of the good parts."
4. It's insulting to the author to lie about the quality of the paper. You need to be honest. I
am one of the "friendly" referees, but when a paper is truly garbage, I let the author know.
Many of the garbage papers are submitted by new assistant professors. Friendly but
dishonest referee reports are not going to help them get tenure.
LIKE
I think your points are good, but they're addressing 'negative' reviews. The author was
trying (I think) to draw a distinction between negative and mean. It's one thing to say
'the author clearly doesn't understand the literature' (if true) or 'section 2 needs to be
seriously rethought, because...' It's another to say 'the author is an imbecile and the
paper is junk'.
A lot of the 'mean', I think, could be negated with a 'because'; if you're going to be
snarky, at least then you've given advice. And isn't that at least partly the point of peer
review?
LIKE
Have you really ever gotten a review that said "the author is an imbecile and the
paper is junk"? I have never seen something like this put into a paper review either
as a recipient or in my duties as a journal editor in the hundreds, perhaps
thousands of reviews I have read over the past 30 years, even in cases where such a
review would be deserved. In fact, the only true snark like you refer to has been
written by AUTHORS in their rebuttals to paper and grant reviews. It is not
common, and is never productive, but some folks react so emotionally to a
negative review that they can not respond with measured arguments to negative
reviews.
LIKE
tuxthepenguin 1 month ago
jax 1 month ago in reply to tuxthepenguin
graddirector 1 month ago in reply to jax
faculty_developer 1 month ago in reply to jax
I think jax has made an important point. Saying "The author clearly doesn't
understand the literature" is not only mean, it's useless. Alone, it doesn't tell the
author what is missing or misunderstood or misrepresented in the paper. But
tuxthepenguin went on to explain the ways in which the author didn't understand
the literature--by failing to cite or accurately summarize key literature. I only hope
that in the actual review, tux, you mentioned the points you listed in your
comment, because those are what the author can use to improve the paper.
Essentially, the issue is that both editors and reviewers need to do their jobs. Yes, a
lot of what is submitted for publication is dreck. Some of that should be screened
out by journal editors. They should do their jobs by screening out some of the
worst papers before they get into the hands of reviewers, regardless of the time it
takes--that's the job of an editor. For the dreck that gets to reviewers, it's satisfying
but useless simply to say that a paper is poor. It's harder but substantially more
useful to explain HOW the paper falls short. So reviewers, do your job by
eliminating the snarky tone as much as possible, and by being specific in your
criticisms.
LIKE
'Saying "The author clearly doesn't understand the literature" is not only
mean, it's useless.'
That represents a common misunderstanding of the reviewing process. I'm
an expert in my small area. I've been asked *by the editor* to spend hours
(sometimes ten or more) of my time reviewing the paper. "The author clearly
doesn't understand the literature" plus a brief elaboration is sufficient for the
editor.
It's true that I could donate more of my time to help the author. However, I've
never agreed to serve as a free consultant for an author. I have no obligation to
convince the author, with a detailed, publication-quality report, why he/she
is wrong. The author is entitled to a decision and nothing more.
LIKE
"The author is entitled to a decision and nothing more."
Then tick the "Reject" box and be done with it.
If you don't actually mean what you say, and intend to give reasons for
rejection that can be useful to both editor and author, then focus on
pointing out how to address the gaps in the author's research -- don't
just point out that you think there are gaps (or that the author cannot
"understand" the literature, which is extremely condescending). That's
the difference between being an arrogant old crank and a wise old
mentor.
LIKE
tuxthepenguin 1 month ago in reply to faculty_developer
minnesotan 1 month ago in reply to tuxthepenguin
Tell me, do you treat your OWN grad students in the same way? Because
there's a good chance that you're reviewing the work of a grad student or
young professional, who may not "understand" the literature for the
simple reason that she's not been involved in it for as long as you have
and her professor isn't motivated enough to teach her well. It's your
responsibility, as an editor, to make that clear. Not just in a general,
unhelpful statement, but in a clear statement explicitly stating which
papers are misinterpreted and which are left out.
Remember how you felt as a beginning researcher? Did YOU know
everything? How much would YOU have appreciated a specific
criticism, rather than a general one that you didn't know how to apply?
Or maybe you merely wanted "a decision and nothing more"? I rather
doubt that.
LIKE
Once a reviewer establishes that a paper is not publishable, why should he or
she waste further time on it? One is not obligated to spend precious time
trying to salvage the unsalvageable!
I have not seen reviews that contain abusive or mean-spirited language. I
have occasionally encountered the "it is not the paper I would like written"
nonsense. In general, peer review is vastly overrated and increasingly
dysfunctional. And when I see what makes it past peer review in all too many
cases, it does not inspire respect.
LIKE
After all, when we grade student papers, we don't just mark each paper "A,"
"B," etc., with no further comments. We mark and explain specifics in the
paper in order to justify the grade. (At least I hope we do! Otherwise students
will miss out on an opportunity to learn and will complain to the teacher and
maybe the administration about arbitrary grading.)
LIKE
You are confusing the responsibilities of a faculty member and a journal
reviewer. The former has an obligation to provide those comments, the
latter has a responsibility to determine the suitability of a manuscript
submission for a particular journal. Most reviewers provide constructive
criticism to assist the author in revising a publishable manuscript, but
detailed comments providing "an opportunity to learn" should have
occurred prior to the journal submission when graduate students or
novice faculty members are the authors. And these learning
opportunities should be provided by the graduate student's faculty or
Reythia 1 month ago in reply to tuxthepenguin
procrustes 1 month ago in reply to faculty_developer
quizshow77 1 month ago in reply to faculty_developer
radavidson 1 month ago in reply to quizshow77
advisor or by mentors of novice faculty members.
"Mean" comments are certainly uncalled for, and inappropriate, but
whether a comment is "mean" or not is in the eyes of the beholder.
Oh yes, as others have pointed out, the other difference between a faculty
member and a journal reviewer is that one is in a paid position, while the
other is not.
LIKE
Saying "The author clearly doesn't understand the literature" is not only
mean, it's useless. Alone, it doesn't tell the author what is missing or
misunderstood or misrepresented in the paper. But tuxthepenguin went on
to explain the ways in which the author didn't understand the literature--by
failing to cite or accurately summarize key literature."
Tux did not actually say he or she gave this much detail as to why the author
didn't understand the literature. faculty_developer, you say that a review
noting that the author clearly doesn't understand the literature is mean, but I
disagree. If you are going to submit a paper, the literature review must be
sufficient and accurately conveyed to the reader. Adding the comment
"failing to cite or accurately summarize key literature." doesn't give any more
significant information to the author than the first sentence, and doesn't
make it any less "mean" if the author perceives it that way. To really be
constructive, the reviewer would need to specify the citations missed, and
how the literature was inaccurate. That doesn't sound like constructive
criticism, that sounds like grading a research paper, which an unpaid reviewer
does not have time for. I'm sorry, but to me that sounds like a student who is
submitting a draft, and wants enough comments so the work is done for
them.
Submitters should be asking an expert mentor or several to review their
manuscripts prior to submitting. A reviewer comment "The author clearly
doesn't understand the literature" by itself is not mean, it is an opinion of the
reviewer. The author needs to assess whether he or she truly does understand
the literature well.
LIKE
"The author clearly does not understand the literature" is mean. It is much less
personal, as well as more accurate, to say, "The literature review omits multiple related
papers and misrepresents the results of two cited works." The review should be about
what appears in the paper, not about the author.
LIKE
'It is much less personal, as well as more accurate, to say, "The
literature review omits multiple related papers and misrepresents the
results of two cited works."'
radavidson 1 month ago in reply to faculty_developer
cypripedium 1 month ago in reply to tuxthepenguin
tuxthepenguin 1 month ago in reply to cypripedium
It is definitely not more accurate to say that, because it cuts out most of the
relevant information. "The author clearly does not understand the literature" lets
the author know that he/she has lost credibility. When I see a wildly incorrect
summary of my own work, it's not simply an issue of the author needing to change
a few sentences. I know after reading statements like that that the author is
clueless about the literature, I discount everything else the author says, and I want
to let the author know that.
LIKE
Who wrote the literature review? Gnomes?
I understand the (your) point, certainly, but "this paper is idiotic" is fairly identical
to "the author of this paper is idiotic." Both are harsh in tone and not very
constructive at all. Hence, it seems to be more a question of the language used
rather than whether one pretends to avoid speaking about the author by simply
not mentioning him, her, it. One would hope, yes, that the reviewer is concise
and aware of the effect of "negative" comments, but beyond that, poor writing,
ignored/overlooked research, etc. is what it is.
As for "mean," I believe the term is being tossed about a bit too freely. Some
reviewers may be acting meanly, i.e. with contempt. with malice, but I would
hope that number would be small. (Send such a review back to the editor.) But
again, aside from the need to flesh out the criticism, give examples, etc., "the
author clearly does not understand the literature" may be a necessary slap in the
face.
LIKE
"The author clearly does not understand the literature" to me sounds like an
academic version of the ad hominem "You're an idiot!" flames that we see in
public blogs and online comments all the time.
LIKE
This too is fraught with difficulty. I had an article rejected once because the
reviewer suggested that I had not consulted the very important contribution of so-
and-so. I was puzzled by this and, being a Ph.D. and accustomed to research, tried
to find out about this overlooked scholar. It turns out the work in question was an
unpublished dissertation written under the direction of the reviewer. So, the
reviewer was either upset that this groundbreaking work was not in the forefront of
the scholarly discussion or was trying to dredge up citations to his student's
research. My point is that criticisms in a review are not always neutral.
LIKE
Rael64 1 month ago in reply to cypripedium
quizshow77 1 month ago in reply to Rael64
duxfrancorum 1 month ago in reply to cypripedium
Granted. But at least you know what it means given a clear statement like,
"The literature review omits multiple related papers, such as "Blah" by Such
and Such, and misrepresents the results of these two cited works: Blah and
Blah". You may not agree with it still, but it's a lot more clear than merely,
"The author clearly does not understand the literature," which provides no
further information.
LIKE
I doubt I would feel any better by seeing your revised critique as opposed to the
original comment, if I was the author. I would then want to know which "multiple
related papers" I omitted, and how I "misrepresented the results of two cited
works" and which cited works they were. Also, I would perceive the comment that
I "misrepresented" results as a personal attack. Misrepresentation implies
deliberate action to me. The bottom line is I'm going to feel bad either way. There
is no real way to soften that type of critique.
LIKE
this is such an accurate and thoughtful assessment of an inexcusable situation. I'm only glad
to find that this is true beyond my own discipline of English studies.
I've thought that this kind of commentary gets powered by one of the great human
pleasures: self-righteousness. These reviewers enjoy taking a kind of offense at what the
writer has done, as if the reviewer is the accepted guardian of the sacred knowledge, which
the writer has wantonly and mindlessly offended. Not only does the self-righteous response
feel better, it's typically much easier than putting serious thought into how the writer might
be helped along. I sure hope these reviewers aren't this way as teachers...
on a more positive note, in my experience the longer you're in the business, the more able
you are to separate useful criticism from self-righteous enjoyment.
tony e. jackson
LIKE
Agreed. At this point, I mine the reviews for anything I can use to improve the work. I
ignore the rest. I don't have time for it.
LIKE
Clearly there is a wide variance based on discipline. I submit, and review, clinical
Reythia 1 month ago in reply to duxfrancorum
radavidson 1 month ago in reply to cypripedium
tejackso 1 month ago
caldwecr 1 month ago in reply to tejackso
radavidson 1 month ago in reply to tejackso
research studies. When submissions are rejected, it is usually because of serious flaws in
the research, or lack of clinical relevance; things that can't be fixed. Although as the
researcher these rejections obviously are disappointing, to say the least, as the reviewer
there is no way to convey the critique in a way that will make the author feel good.
On the other hand, authors submitting well conducted, relevant, clinical studies that
can be publishable by revisions are usually, in my experience, provided detailed
suggestions for the required revisions. Maybe I'm just missing them, but I have not
come across the mean spirited reviews for "self-righteous enjoyment" that seem to be
the subject of this article and the reader comments.
LIKE
As an editor, I do try to edit out the snarky comments. But it's also true how difficult it is to
find people willing to write a review. Even many of our own authors refuse to do it. So like it
or not, we're stuck with reviews by those willing to do reviews. If someone is too snarky,
though, I don't go back to them for another review.
LIKE
Except for getting your advice from Taylor Swift, this was a great article. But seriously, if we
listed all of the issues with journal reviews, it would approach the length of the OED. The
reviewing process is an awful system, but like capitalism, better than the alternatives. The
typically anonymity of the reviewers is the culprit. Honestly, if you can hide behind your
comments, there are no limits to how awful the comments can be. On the other hand, if a
reviewer is revealed, the author will often start up an external discussion with the reviewer. I
can see where that would lead to problems. Nonetheless, removing the reviewer's
anonymity at least by the time of the final decision would be an improved system. If a
reviewer is not willing to stand openly by his comments, he isn't worth using as a reviewer.
At a minimum, perhaps an associate editor could intervene to cut down on the meanness of
certain reviews. Most journals have editorial boards the length of an NFL roster, so there are
plenty of people available. I hope some journal editors will see this point and propose a
change. At a minimum, editors could tell authors that non-constructive reviews could result
in blacklisting.
LIKE
LOAD MORE COMMENTS
profmomof1 1 month ago
deltaskelta 1 month ago

ChronicleofHIgherEd GottaBeSoMean

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ChronicleofHIgherEd GottaBeSoMean

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8/27/13 Why You Gotta Be So Mean?

- Do Your Job Better - The Chronicle of Higher Education

You might also like