,
8 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Thread: At 23, submitted my first paper. One of the reviewers was so scathing I considered dropping out of my PhD. My anxiety amped up massively, & I had a whole year of issues with that. The reviewer was so acerbic I truly believed I was a total failure (1/n)
.. somehow, mustered up courage to submit paper again, with minor changes suggested by reviewer 2, to higher impact journal. I was completely resigned to verbal evisceration, ready to throw in the towel. Imagine my surprise when the reviews came back overwhelmingly positive (2/n)
..I truly couldn't believe it; the paper was essentially the same, yet these reviewers were full of praise & constructive criticism. One of them even signed his review, revealing him as a big name in our little field. Getting this published gave me confidence to finish PhD (3/n)
..I moved into cancer research after PhD, but still kept up with my old field, & was soon reviewing for journals. Years later I had a paper in the original journal I submitted to, & ended up at a party with new journal editor & colleague from old days, when review came up (4/n)
.. immediately they knew who it was; a guy in our field disliked by practically everyone whose own research was not well regarded. He'd taken exception to my paper because I'd not given his (limited) ideas enough praise, apparently his MO with others. This stunned me (5/n)
We laughed with benefit of hindsight, but (a) this person had no business reviewing papers (b) editor should have been aware their reviews were damaging & unfair, & exercised some editorial discretion. I got lucky - asshole reviewers have driven great people out of science (6/n)
I review a lot these days. And it costs nothing to be kind & constructive - even if a paper is flawed & you're rejecting it, highlight how the paper could be useful & what changes would make it so. If they've made a mistake, gently point it out - don't denigrate anyone (7/n)
Remember there's a human at the other end, possibly a student. All science is flawed - our job as reviewers is to make it better & to help others do so. Editors, if reviewers are incapable of showing understanding & compassion, don't use them. Science is hard enough as it. (8/8)
