Thread by @raulpacheco

I have to share a story.

I have, in fact, been Reviewer 2. As kind as I can be.

BUT

There are limits. IF an author viciously attacks another author's work, I emphatically express my disagreement.

This happens more often than I would like to admit.

You can, in fact...

... be a rigorous scholar, provide a different argument, WITHOUT entirely trashing the entire body of work of another scholar.

I have been on the receiving end of this extremely vicious peer review, and I have seen others review in that way, and WRITE in that way.

CUT IT OUT.

Advisors: we CAN, I would argue, we MUST teach our students how to write forcefully, powerfully, based on evidence, argument and solid command of the literature, without trashing or engaging in personal attacks of a scholar's work (or career).

Assertiveness doesn't imply...

... trashing other people's scholarship.

You can BUILD on someone's work.

You can EXPAND someone's work.

You can EXTEND someone's work.

You can OFFER A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION to the one other scholars provide.

You can REPLICATE AND EXTEND someone else's work.

I am tired of reading (and reviewing) this type of writing:

"So-and-So is an absolute idiot and their interpretation of X is wrong and mine is right".

"I prove Scholar A wrong by providing the correct answer to B".

Wow. Is this what academia is supposed to be?

JESUS.