In case this (or something like it) ever happens to you, editors should NOT send out reviews like this. Reviewers should be trained in competent, clear and respectful reviewing. Push back hard if you get something like this. #AcademicTwitter#AcademicChatter#PhDChat#gradschool
Criticisms that say work needs a do-over or re-starting need to explain why and how. No snark without solution. If it's just a 'you're terrible, go away and start again' remark it does not belong anywhere.
If you get a review like this you cite the COPE ethical guidelines for reviewers "be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory
and from making libellous or derogatory personal comments" publicationethics.org/files/Peer%20r…
You also say to the editor how astonished you were the reviewer said this and you can only imagine it was an accident the editor sent this on given both the editor and reviewer ought to be adhering to ethical and professional standards.
If your work was rejected you can request another review based on the unethical reviewer (you may not get one but it's worth asking). If your work was accepted but the reviewer was still obnoxious, again you push back. Don't be scared it'll lead to your paper being rejected
If your paper was accepted then rejected because you pointed out the reviewer and editor acted unethically, well they've just opened up a bigger can of worms, haven't they? Don't be rude, be firm, calm and clear. Maintain your professional boundaries
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Today's #ResearchTip is be wary if using qualitative approaches and are encouraged to make your research "more reliable" by
- using a random sample
- converting qual data to numerical data
- incorporating quant approaches #AcademicTwitter#AcademicChatter#PhDChat#HigherEd /1
I bore myself having to say this but we are decades beyond any qual vs quant debates, teaching qual in contrast to quant, implying qual methods are lesser to quant ones, or artificially forcing qual methods into quant approaches. Stop it already! /2
This #ResearchTip is prompted by seeing yet another example of someone being told to "improve" qual research by making it more quant (applying randomisation). If you're not expert in qual methods stop telling people how to do them and go learn yourself /3
What does being an active bystander involve? It means noticing if someone is at risk (even if they are not aware of it themselves) and either checking they're okay, helping them move to safety, acting as a witness, or intervening to prevent a situation escalating or continuing /2
For example if you noticed a colleague was being harassed you could
- check they were okay
- suggest you go somewhere else
- position yourself in ways that puts a block between an abuser and their victim
- note what's happening
- acknowledge it is not okay
- avoid escalation /3
Something for tutors to note, while Black International Students experience high levels of racism, students often also feel unable to tell you due to fear, shame, threat or embarrassment. When delivering pastoral care or supervision ask about student safety, rights and wellbeing
Often tutors won't ask because they don't know what to say or do or feel uncomfortable having conversations or recognising they or their organisation needs to change. Simply asking 'are you okay' and doing nothing isn't good enough. Support is needed while changes are made
International students may feel trapped as they experience racism from fellow students,faculty and those they encounter off campus. Fears around funding,visas, career progression and dependants make it hard to speak out. Too often students are gaslit or dismissed if they disclose
If an existing research tool could be used in your study it’ll save time, allow you to build on existing research, and help you network with other researches in your field. If someone describes using a tool/technique in a paper it’s fine to email them and ask for more details /2
Researchers can let you have a copy of their research tool which you can either replicate or amend (assuming it won’t affect validity). It might be you translate or adapt it in other ways depending on your participants, so piloting is key. /3
In case this needs explaining, and I can hardly believe it does, sharing academic gossip about PhD students on social media is unethical, unprofessional and a form of badmouthing.
If you dislike a student, ignore them. If their supervisor tells you something about them in confidence, don’t blab on social media. If you feel a student is doing something inappropriate or needs help it’s an internal matter - not a drama to escalate on social media
Every day on Twitter is a reminder how social media training for academics is not remotely fit for purpose. We need to do so much better.
Today’s #ResearchTip is about social media. If someone’s created a thread, linked to a paper/resource, made a film, or shared their story and your response is to criticise or correct prior to reading in full, pause, check, *then* decide if a response is needed /1
It’s part of our academic training to critique,but that should come after reading,digesting,reflecting. It may be a point you feel has been missed so you must make was there but you hadn’t got that far. Minoritised scholars are especially impacted by these kinds of corrections /2
Obviously if someone is sharing something awful you can report, challenge and mute/block. But if you’re reading, watching or listening to something academic shared on social media you’re interested in but have already decided it’s wrong you may want to pause and check /3