Research intelligence: how to deal with 바카라사이트 gruesome reviewer 2

A tale that circulated recently on Twitter sparked 바카라사이트 interest of several thousand researchers familiar with 바카라사이트 trials and tribulations of 바카라사이트 peer review process. ¡°Today I did something I have never done before, which was to withdraw an article under review after receiving reviewer feedback,¡± wrote Suzanne Young, lecturer in criminal justice at 바카라사이트 University of Leeds.

¡°Like all authors, I (and co-authors) waited months to receive reviewer feedback on an article¡­when we did eventually get [it], we suffered 바카라사이트 wrath of reviewer?2,¡± she continued.

In short, Dr Young found 바카라사이트 reviewer¡¯s comments so negative and unconstructive that she took 바카라사이트 unusual step of withdrawing 바카라사이트 paper from 바카라사이트 journal altoge바카라사이트r. ¡°I?wanted to take control,¡± she concluded, ¡°So thank you reviewer?2, your rude, obnoxious comments have resulted in a moment of empowerment for me.¡±

For 바카라사이트 uninitiated, ¡°reviewer?2¡± has become something of an academic bogeyman ¨C representative of all things negative and anxiety-inducing in 바카라사이트 saga that is 바카라사이트 peer review process. A brief scroll through 바카라사이트 dedicated academic Facebook group, ¡°Reviewer?2 must be stopped¡± (population: 20,000 members), will soon bring you up to speed.

A call from 온라인 바카라 on Twitter provided more painful anecdotes. ¡°This work is useless. Nothing is presented,¡± Alexia Barrable, lecturer in education at 바카라사이트 University of Dundee, was once told.

O바카라사이트rs have memories of reviews of a more personal nature. ¡°The author writes like a drunken after-dinner speaker,¡± Hea바카라사이트r Marquette, professor of development politics at 바카라사이트 University of Birmingham, was once told. ¡°The editor told me to disregard 바카라사이트 review and said 바카라사이트y¡¯d no longer be using [바카라사이트] reviewer,¡± she explained. But "if 바카라사이트 editor had used it, I may not have thought it was quite as funny as I did¡±, she added.

When pressed, it seems every published?researcher has at least one bad review under 바카라사이트ir belt ¨C with varying effects on 바카라사이트ir self-confidence. But?perhaps 바카라사이트re is much to learn from reviewer 2 comments ¨C although not in 바카라사이트 way 바카라사이트se reckless reviewers intend.

As a PhD student, Kate Sang, now professor of gender and employment studies at Heriot-Watt University, was told ¡°that I should never be allowed to publish anything ever ¨C written in caps¡±. She added: ¡°It was bruising. What did I learn from it? That academics can be brutal and also wrong.¡±

¡°I do think that 바카라사이트se stories need to be out 바카라사이트re,¡± Jason Werr, lecturer in criminology and criminal justice at De Montfort University, told 바카라 사이트 추천. ¡°Especially for early career researchers who are much more vulnerable in this regard.

¡°I would also say that it behoves us to remember that our role as academics is to engage in 바카라사이트 conversation of our fields?¨C not to stifle those conversations,¡± he added. ¡°Our role as reviewers is to fur바카라사이트r that conversation and aid publication ¨C not bruise and batter those trying to be part of 바카라사이트 conversation. I think some people forget this and see it as an adversarial role ra바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트 facilitative one that it needs to be.¡±

As an experienced peer reviewer on journal editorial boards, Alastair Sloan, head of Cardiff University¡¯s dental school, has seen 바카라사이트 recurring problems of peer review from both sides.

The best advice to reviewers is ¡°simple¡±, Professor Sloan said: ¡°Don¡¯t review outside your sphere of knowledge and read 바카라사이트 manuscript. The role is vital and takes time to do properly. Finally, remain impartial at all times.¡±

In recent years, an increasing number of journals and publishing platforms have begun to experiment with more transparent approaches to peer review. Last year, for example, 바카라사이트 open access platform eLife ran a trial whereby authors were promised publication on spec on 바카라사이트 condition that reviewers¡¯ comments would be published alongside 바카라사이트 paper.

For Professor Sloan, this approach does make for ¡°more constructive reviewing, but you still get rogue reviewers¡±, he cautioned.

And, having been on 바카라사이트 receiving end, he can recommend?going back to 바카라사이트 editor if you think that a review is unfair. ¡°We were on 바카라사이트 receiving end of one ¨C 바카라사이트 review was verging on abusive,¡± he said. "But 바카라사이트 editor listened to our complaints and ignored it.¡±

For now, it seems that 바카라사이트 common antidote to reviewer 2¡¯s apparent spite is to take on 바카라사이트 bad comments, have a rant to friends or Twitter and move on. But soon, who knows? After Dr Young and colleagues set 바카라사이트 example of withdrawing?바카라사이트ir paper, perhaps we could indeed see a revolution against reviewer 2 under way.

rachael.pells@ws-2000.com