While I can feel some discomfort in reviewing reviewers' comments, and I would get upset as a reviewer - feeling a threat to the independency of judgement..
The scientific peer- reviewing process is not a childish joke, to vomit the revenge sedimented there from years.
1/n
The scientific peer- reviewing process is not a childish joke, to vomit the revenge sedimented there from years.
1/n
My take from an interesting dialogue with a high-level editorial board this afternoon can be summarised as:
@ScienceMagazine
sciencemag.org/news/2020/10/d…
@ScienceMagazine
sciencemag.org/news/2020/10/d…
> 80% of High-impact editors would "alter" the revision proof if a reviewer uses offensive language or makes inappropriate personal comments about the authors..
One option discussed to pursue for the best research integrity and publication ethics, is to return reports containing hostile language and ask the reviewer to change it‼️
It's about the personal hostility, not the comments on the contents.
While editors are not supplementing the agencies for quality assurance of research, editorial boards of scientific Journals have a demiurgic role: monitor and account for the misconduct and misbehaviour, raidicated into the professionalism of a reviewer.
The #goldenrule dictates that reviews are not the appropriate places to take out one's displace anger ore one's bad day 💪
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
