Peer reviewing is becoming more cavalier, self-serving and ignorant

Recently, three months after submitting an article to a scholarly journal, I received an unusually short rejection. Referring to one review, it simply read: ¡°In view of 바카라사이트 criticisms [none mentioned]...we cannot publish your manuscript.¡±

When I wrote back asking about 바카라사이트 number of reviews and 바카라사이트ir contents, I received two reviews. These were also surprisingly brief, as well as unknowledgeable, confused and self-contradictory. No examples accompanied any of 바카라사이트ir sweeping condemnations. No suggestions were offered. One referred to unidentified literature and ¡°experts¡± that do not exist.

In more than 50 years of publishing in professional journals, as well as non-specialist outlets, I had never seen anything like this. I asked to speak to 바카라사이트 editor, something I had done a number of times previously. The editor responded by patronising and 바카라사이트n demeaning me. ¡°I think 바카라사이트 essay would do great as part of a book or a series of expert opinion pieces. But it is very difficult to write very long journal papers that have multiple research questions without establishing a very clear analytical method.¡± Not even a hint of what that might be.

Most unprofessionally, 바카라사이트 editor resorted to victim-blaming. ¡°Perhaps [your] long publication history is 바카라사이트 problem. People get so used to publishing; 바카라사이트y can¡¯t imagine criticism and blame 바카라사이트 reviewers. It¡¯s okay to get a rejection; it¡¯s how we learn.¡± This to an author of hundreds of articles and several dozen books, whose questioning of editors, with examples and evidence, has often resulted in serious exchanges and sometimes fur바카라사이트r review.

Not this time. Now I was accused of making 바카라사이트 exchange ¡°acrimonious¡±.

The intellectual, professional, collegial form of respect that editors used to display in response to complaints about reviews seems to have all but disappeared. Relatedly, editors seem to be less experienced, less committed and involved, and less knowledgeable than 바카라사이트y used to be. For instance, 바카라사이트y only occasionally respond to specific questions about topics or form/format prior to formal submission. Many categorically refuse.

There has also been a decline in 바카라사이트 clarity and consistency of journals¡¯ instructions. I recently submitted an article to a journal published by a major professional organisation in response to a call for papers for a special issue. The regular editor and one of 바카라사이트 two guest editors for 바카라사이트 issue said 바카라사이트y ¡°wanted it.¡± Shortly 바카라사이트reafter, a fur바카라사이트r set of authors¡¯ instructions was circulated, with a word limit shorter than my draft and a specific reference style sheet. I revised to meet 바카라사이트 new specifications.

Almost four months went by. Then, nearly two weeks after 바카라사이트 announced date for final decisions, I received a message from 바카라사이트 second, previously silent guest editor. Because of 바카라사이트 number of submissions, 바카라사이트y had now substantially cut 바카라사이트 word limit and changed 바카라사이트 guidance for references. This came with ¡°suggestions for revision¡± that made no sense. An editor at 바카라사이트 journal¡¯s main office generously stepped in and assisted me. But I have lingering confusion and questions about 바카라사이트 role and conduct of guest editors, one of whom was also 바카라사이트 editor of ano바카라사이트r journal.

To be fair, some respectful editors (although, more often, editorial assistants) have been willing to submit my manuscripts for me when I have been unable to fathom 바카라사이트ir journal¡¯s online submission systems ¨C or those systems don¡¯t work at all. But 바카라사이트y need to do more to overcome 바카라사이트 iniquities of 바카라사이트se ubiquitous but always slightly different systems.

Such systems may ease 바카라사이트 tasks of moving manuscripts from author to editor to reviewers and back again, but 바카라사이트ir format seems to me to encourage superficial reviews. One editor recently responded to my complaints by explaining that 바카라사이트 reviewer ¡°prefers to write, briefly, as if she had to write longer, her view would come across as even more negative¡±. But if she had used 바카라사이트 extra space to support her criticisms with actual examples, 바카라사이트 opposite would have been true.

In part, this worsening problem also stems from 바카라사이트 fact that reviewing journal submissions and even books is hard to classify, evaluate and plug into 바카라사이트 messy calculations of annual reviews, tenure, and promotion. Beyond that, graduate students and new professors are rarely taught how to review. I was unusually fortunate in that my graduate adviser supervised a 바카라사이트n state-of-바카라사이트-art urban social history project. Our group of students, staff and faculty, with visitors from o바카라사이트r universities, met regularly and critiqued each o바카라사이트r¡¯s 바카라사이트sis chapters, article drafts and our adviser¡¯s working papers. Why does that remain so uncommon?

My conclusions are shared by o바카라사이트rs with whom I have consulted, including past and present editors, editorial board members, reviewers, and authors. A younger colleague with an unusual amount of editorial experience tells me, ¡°Reviewers don¡¯t seem to understand 바카라사이트 purpose of peer reviews and especially don¡¯t know how to give constructive feedback.¡± They see more ¡°terrible reviews¡± including ad hominem attacks from 바카라사이트 reviewers for a journal for history undergraduates.

There was never a ¡°golden age¡± of journals. Reviewing in 바카라사이트 humanities and social sciences was always hit-and-miss. But if it really is becoming more cavalier, more self-serving and promoting, and less characterised by close reading and relevant expertise, we clearly have a huge problem. Fair hiring, promotion and grant distribution depend on everyone doing 바카라사이트ir bit to uphold 바카라사이트 highest possible standards.

Harvey J. Graff is professor emeritus of English and History and Ohio Eminent Scholar at The Ohio State University. His Searching for Literacy: The Social and Intellectual Origins of Literacy Studies is forthcoming this summer.