3/12/2023 0 Comments Pull the pin challenge level 16Reviews that are especially mean or critical, without providing tangible points for improvement and growth, can lead scholars to bury their research on their laptops, not daring to send it off to another journal for a second attempt at publication. This is especially true for articles written by EAL (English as an Additional Language) authors whose methods and writing conventions likely differ from those of the reviewer. Sometimes simply trying to decipher reviewer comments can prove to be a herculean challenge. This is especially prevalent among more junior scholars who have less experience handling rejection and figuring out how to absorb and dissect the reviewer’s comments (on both a cognitive and emotional level). The anonymous review system makes it difficult to conduct constructive dialogue and authors are left feeling helpless and frustrated, not knowing what reviewers want from them or how they can improve their research. These authors feel the sting of reviewers who dismiss or reject their manuscript, seemingly without evincing any responsibility to explain how they would have done things differently or what the author can do to improve their research in light of the critique. Authors feel ‘battered’ rather than ‘bettered’ in their reviews and respond either by becoming intransigent in their approach or by beginning to doubt the quality of their own research and even themselves as researchers. A Facebook group named ‘Reviewer 2 Must be Stopped!’ has tens of thousands of members who share their poor, and at times, outrageous review experiences.Īuthors, meanwhile, are reverting into ‘fight or flight’ mode by responding in kind to reviewers or shelving the research altogether. For example, Adriana Romero-Olivares, professor of microbial ecology at New Mexico State University, details the demoralizing experience she had when her reviewers went into great detail to criticize the language and writing style of her article, without even bothering to address the underlying scientific findings. Rather than being an educational process that can help scholars improve their research and catch errors, peer review has become an arena where it is acceptable to critique and tear down others. It seems that many reviewers see their primary role as deflating the arguments and methodologies of the manuscripts they receive, often without any concern for the way the author will receive the comments or whether the critique can be addressed and revised. In my experience as the CEO of an author services company, I encounter dozens of these reviews on a weekly basis and I am troubled by what I perceive as a steady decline in the pervading culture and attitude shown in these reviews, specifically for journal submissions. As such, peer review continues to be the central process around which scientific knowledge is explored, critiqued, scrutinized, and refined. These legitimate critiques generally fall short of recommending doing away with peer review altogether in lieu of a preferred alternative. Furthermore, in many cases, reviewers are far less experienced researchers than the scholars they are reviewing. Additional issues include the fact that peer review tends to be slow and expensive with reviewers generally remaining unpaid. Some critics point to peer review missing fundamental flaws in published papers, resulting in problematic research that requires retraction, while others take issue with the fact that peer review can lead to biased results. Peer review of academic articles is not without its numerous faults and it has come under attack on multiple fronts in recent years. Trust in the scientific review process in general, and peer review specifically, was put to the test and much of the public debate hinged on the reliability and transparency of the expedited review process. For example, vaccines developed by leading pharmaceutical companies to combat Coronavirus were scrutinized by scientists the world over using the peer review process to ensure the veracity of the research and to suggest tweaks and improvements. Peer review can be an opportunity for authors to rethink and refine their arguments. Avi is the founder and CEO of Academic Language Experts, a company dedicated to assisting academic scholars to prepare their research for publication and bring it to the world. Editor’s Note: Today’s post is by Avi Staiman.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |