Thread by @Richard_Autism

I cannot believe I crying over a peer review.

The peer review accepts:
"The author is clearly passionate about his view"
"It is clear the author has very good knowledge of PDA and related issues"

""challenging whether PDA should just be seen as a subcategory of ASD as to a behavioural profile that can be seen in children who do not ASD". There are strong arguments for this"

"(perhaps 2 head-to-head articles in a special issue written by invitation may be better)."

"I am not saying one should not write an article to argue that PDA should be a diagnosis but that should come from several prominent people writing the article together"

To be clear I am crying because I am distraught at this. I will likely be pursuing a grievance against the reviewer when I have their name, because of what they have said.

They have accused me of things in the review which are not factually true.

They acknowledge in previous review:
"The author does have some valid and interesting point such as PDA is not equal to ASD and vice-versa,"

From first round review:
"The author may chose to write a much longer separate article to demonstrate that PDA should be accepted as new diagnostic entity"

The point here is that I did just that, I argued PDA should be viewed as a standalone entity. While explaining how four main viewpoints developed.

Apparently, I was too strong in my arguments. That it would be better coming from several authors, despite me meeting as much of the reviewer's suggestions as possible.

Some of the reviewer's comments were unrealistic. Like asking me to discuss PDA in other countries. This is despite me pointing out PDA is acknowledged to be a UK based diagnosis. Lack of non-UK literature existing.

I referenced what non-UK literature I could.

Yet apparently, "The author has addressed some of the comments but where he disagrees, he has simply made comments about reviewers such as "the reviewer is not familiar with O'nions work"."

Which is factually inaccurate. I gave robust responses, including to how O'Nions still views PDA as an ASD, providing links to relevant articles.

Like here:
link.springer.com/article/10.100…
Or here:
https://
paediatricsandchildhealthjournal.co.uk/article/S1751-…

The only reason you would research PDA in only autistic population samples is if you thought PDA is a form of autism.

No-one should accuse of the things they have done, misconstrue my points, like the reviewer has done.

Essentially, reviewer accepted the strength of my position, my expertise and passion on PDA. Said that something should be published on the topic, but instead by multiple authors. That pro dual ASD supporters should get their own several thousand word article

All the while accusing of me things that are simply untrue.

And contradicting at least one of their points in previous peer review.

I told the editor they have two weeks to accept the submission or I will likely be pursuing a grievance with them & publish it in Autism Policy & Practice.

No-one should cause this much distress from their peer review.

Another thing is based on the what is said in the peer review, the reviewer almost certainly knows they are making unreasonable requests of me in it. The reviewer is meant to be a colleague of O'Nions.

Obvious COI there then, in the reviewer and them making suggestions to the article, if the reviewer is a colleague of O'Nions.

To be clear it is accepted PDA is a UK based entity:
"Since interest in the concept of PDA largely centres
on the UK, it is at present a culture-bound concept."
link.springer.com/article/10.100…

And:
"construct has achieved increasingly wide attention,
particularly in the UK (but also in some parts of
continental Europe)"
thelancet.com/journals/lanch…

I do not see how much of the reviewer's comments are valid or stand up to mild scrutiny. If the article is too strong and the reviewer thinks that dual ASD dx persons perspectives should be catered for, that is what journal's letter section is for.

Based on the feedback I had, there is essentially nothing wrong with the submission, it is just that I did not fully meet the reviewer's comments; which as I pointed out, some of them are unrealistic.

If I have to publish it in Autism Policy and Practice, I will publish the peer reviews (which are already anonymised), my rebuttals to the peer reviews and the original submission; I can show some of the reviewer's comments are demonstrably untrue.

The article should be key literature when published.

So the response and reception to it will be interesting.

The more I reflect on the decision email, the more bizarre it seems. The more valid my comments that the reviewer did not adequately engage with the submission.