,
20 tweets,
6 min read
Read on Twitter
It’s been a while since I did an #editorsthread for @thesocreview but as we all wind down for a few days I thought it might be a good idea to share a few thoughts and lessons … and today’s topic: We need to talk about #peerreview …1/
The first is about how I understand #peerreview - I know that there is a lot of debate about this but from my point of view it is about creating a space for constructive dialogue between the author and reviewers 2/
I should also say that IF YOU HAVE PUBLISHED IN A JOURNAL you will likely be called on to review for that journal. All too often, authors will turn down review requests - and I mean REPEATEDLY 3/
I understand that there are lots of reasons why #peerreview is an imperfect system, … BUT, if you are going to expect other people to do unpaid labour so you can get published, you should think about how you repay in kind 4/
I know I am not the first editor to say this but as a rule of thumb: each paper needs three reviews, so for each paper you publish in a journal, expect to review 3 papers in return … that's that rant over 5/
But back to the main points #peerreview as dialogue. Trust me when I say that not all editors, authors or reviewers see it this way (and I have been on the receiving end of my fair share of unpleasant #reviewer2 comments) 6/
What I mean by this is that when this works well it is because reviewers and authors are equally invested and engaged in the process of developing and strengthening papers 7/
By now, you probably think I am being a bit romantic about this but I have seen it work really well to the point where papers are transformed into something really spectacular through the review process so please bear with me 8/
What does it take to get to this stage? So let’s think about the reviewer. The reviews that I find really useful as an editor and an author are those where it is clear that the reviewer has taken time to read the paper carefully and prepare their review 9/
They often start their review with a summary of how they understand what the paper is trying to do (and maybe adding some thoughts on what they think the strengths of the argument are) 10/
And then, the difficult part: critique … this is a common feature of most reviews as it is really unusual to get an article accepted as it is when you first submit it … but there are helpful ways of doing critique & other ways that are just unpleasant & demoralising 11/
My plea to all #peerreviewers is to remember that a person will receive your review ... this is not just about tone, but also about showing care. For e.g. think about how a review in capital letters, or that uses an inordinate amount of exclamation marks will be read 12/
And remember that your review is likely one among several, that the editor is going to make the final call on #nextsteps for the paper, and that it best not to list your recommendation in the comments 13/
Where reviewers structure their reviews carefully - moving from the overall argument and structure through to more minor issues - this can be very useful both for the editor and the authors 14/
I particularly look for reviewers to comment on the strength and sharpness of the argument and whether this needs to be further developed (and in what ways) 15/
How the argument is presented and whether the overall structure of the paper works to support this 16/
Whether they think that this offers a contribution to knowledge in a particular field (or what work needs to be done in order to achieve this) 17/
Whether they are convinced by the fit between the empirical research presented in the paper and the argument being made and whether they think that the methodology in the paper is sufficient 18/
Many reviewers do work in this way - but I think that because #peerreview happens behind closed doors we are not always so good and communicating #bestpractice 19/
What #peerreview is not is an opportunity to highlight how clever you are as a reviewer 20/
