tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20099192.post7411106731149442540..comments2024-01-28T03:35:51.182-05:00Comments on Reassigned Time: Peer Review, or Who the Hell Do I Think I Am?Dr. Crazyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12457967076373916629noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20099192.post-25456022317459997282008-09-02T18:42:00.000-04:002008-09-02T18:42:00.000-04:00Psych post doc: You know, I wish I were the sort o...Psych post doc: You know, I wish I were the sort of person who could use praise to soften the blow. The fact is, if I had substantial praise to offer, this thing would have gotten a revise and resubmit. As any student of mine would tell you, I'm not great with the positive feedback. Not that I don't give it, but I'm much more oriented toward focusing on improvements as opposed to accomplishments. I don't think this is necessarily bad, but it does mesh better with some personalities than others.<BR/><BR/>I think a lot of this goes back to my own feelings about dealing with responses to my work. I don't do particularly well with positive reactions, because if they're followed up by negative ones I think all the positive stuff was a lie. I'm suspicious. This isn't how all people operate, but it is how I operate. So that informs my criticism of others, for better or worse.<BR/><BR/>Susan: I agree about the feeling of "HOW did this get published?" Which probably colors my responses somewhat, but which also makes me feel like a jerk, if that makes sense, as so many people get published with standards that I wouldn't approve. I've got to say, though, even if they think I'm walking on water, I hate the reports. See above :)Dr. Crazyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12457967076373916629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20099192.post-18368221633367999492008-09-02T17:42:00.000-04:002008-09-02T17:42:00.000-04:00I know the sometimes icky feeling of recommending ...I know the sometimes icky feeling of recommending rejection, but I also think of myself as a reader of journals who sometimes says, "HOW did that get published?"<BR/><BR/>If you give constructive advice, that's great. Though I'm with you. I had reading readers reports almost as much as I hate reading student evaluations. If they don't say I walk on water, I have real trouble dealing with it!Susanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09716705206734059708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20099192.post-88716844622959762012008-09-02T14:01:00.000-04:002008-09-02T14:01:00.000-04:00I try to combat feeling badly about writing a reje...I try to combat feeling badly about writing a rejection review by putting all the good stuff about the manuscript upfront. <BR/><BR/>I'll start by listing the strengths and the things I like about the manuscript, in hopes that it takes the sting out of the comments regarding what wasn't up to par.Psych Post Dochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02820776188567097127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20099192.post-47041603168818194262008-08-31T23:22:00.000-04:002008-08-31T23:22:00.000-04:00EE: I aim to please! :)Gwinne: You're so right tha...EE: I aim to please! :)<BR/><BR/>Gwinne: You're so right that how the editor frames the reports makes all the difference in the world. I've been really lucky in this regard thus far.<BR/><BR/>Helenesch: I have a suspicion that perhaps what I read was a heavily edited down version of a not-yet-passed diss chapter or of an MA thesis. A lot of things make me think this, in combination with the wikipedia thing, notably an "as I argued elsewhere" in the manuscript that didn't actually refer to anything that was argued elsewhere within the essay and that didn't cite any previously published thing. There were other things as well that made me suspect this. Now, I could be wrong about that, but it's my strong suspicion. But you are so right about the 15% thing! I am normal! The journal has high standards! Most things are rejected! I'm not a total meanie! (And really, I know I'm not a total meanie, otherwise I'd not have read so carefully or offered actual suggestions for revision even though I recommended "reject." I mean, I was hard on the essay, but I wasn't nit-picky, and I did try to be constructive even as I pointed out what I think are clear problems. But you're so right: it's horrible when the review is super-short and/or clearly unfamiliar with the area of the essay. At least I was guilty on neither of those counts :)Dr. Crazyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12457967076373916629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20099192.post-70877667523960521332008-08-31T17:33:00.000-04:002008-08-31T17:33:00.000-04:00The Wikipedia citing does seem weird! Keep in min...The Wikipedia citing does seem weird! <BR/><BR/>Keep in mind that if they accept less than 15% of submitted essays, you're in the majority in judging that the essay be rejected. So you shouldn't feel bad!<BR/><BR/>And at least you *read* the essay carefully, and somewhat charitably. What I find most frustrating is getting back very short reviews that make it clear that the reviewer hasn't carefully read my paper, or that she/he isn't really working in relevant areas. This seems to happen all too frequently.heleneschhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00379096203492608139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20099192.post-81062142531995347092008-08-31T16:56:00.000-04:002008-08-31T16:56:00.000-04:00I should note, the wikipedia thing was the least o...I should note, the wikipedia thing was the least of the problems that I had... but that was the icing on the cake.Dr. Crazyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12457967076373916629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20099192.post-19358277037306510452008-08-31T16:50:00.000-04:002008-08-31T16:50:00.000-04:00As a source of information. For a fact that they ...As a source of information. For a fact that they could have easily confirmed with a more viable source.<BR/><BR/>You know, I'm not against wikipedia for a lot of things, but I do feel pretty strongly that a journal that accepts less than 15% of submissions probably shouldn't accept articles that use wikipedia as if it is a strong source of fact. At the very least if you found the information first on wikipedia you should hunt down a better source to be the one that you cite. But maybe that's just me.<BR/><BR/>(Unless of course one is analyzing something on wikipedia as a primary source. That, to my mind, would be a different thing.)Dr. Crazyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12457967076373916629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20099192.post-50674503758458608242008-08-31T15:30:00.000-04:002008-08-31T15:30:00.000-04:00They cited wikipedia? Just as an example of somet...They cited wikipedia? Just as an example of somethng in pop culture or did they really think it was a worthy source of information?Lizhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06366539087326081572noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20099192.post-23185353973895603652008-08-31T13:56:00.000-04:002008-08-31T13:56:00.000-04:00I really appreciated this post! Out of five essay...I really appreciated this post! Out of five essays that I've placed recently (all with varying degrees of revision required), only one left me feeling good about the process. And that was an essay that required *substantial* revision before it was accepted. I would have done anything for that editor because she was so *nice* in communicating with me. I think what I'm saying is even negative reviews can be framed by the editor in such a way that the writer doesn't end up feeling demoralized. It's the nasty editors who do the real damage, at least in my experience. I will never again submit to a major journal in my field--I have an essay forthcoming--because the process made me feel worse than any time in my career, even if the outcome was publication.gwinnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04840990153103781272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20099192.post-6609405148094387442008-08-31T13:22:00.000-04:002008-08-31T13:22:00.000-04:00This is what I love about your blog, Crazy. That ...This is what I love about your blog, Crazy. That now that I'm sending out my work, I get to imagine that all the people who reject my work feel as badly about it as you do! =)Earnest Englishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01947000435270263070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20099192.post-92012774126051946192008-08-31T12:34:00.000-04:002008-08-31T12:34:00.000-04:00my favorite part about peer reviewing is when the ...my favorite part about peer reviewing is when the journals send the reviewers copies of the final decision and the other reviewers' comments -- because then I can see how my comments matched the others, and hopefully be reassured that I am not a complete idiot. <BR/><BR/>I agree it's awkward to review something for a journal that's currently reviewing your own work (though from a journal's perspective, how could one possible say no to doing a review in those circumstances?). It's also awkward to do a review for a journal that's already rejected you -- which I've now been asked to do twice this year. I would like to think this means that even though I was rejected, they don't think I am a complete idiot. More likely, it probably just means they need reviewers, but whatever. They wouldn't ask if they thought I was a complete crackpot, right?life_of_a_foolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05427532203981697246noreply@blogger.com