Thread by @jcovvey

I recently had a paper accepted. As a researcher of 10+ years, I've been lucky to have a lot of work published. Through this, I've participated in lots of peer review.

Today I'd love to take you through an example of how not to do #PeerReview. 1/x

I'm used to constructive criticism and feedback. I'm very used to rejection as well. I experience it on both side as both a researcher and an associate editor. But there is a good way to go about it.

This example involved a paper with five colleagues, but also four trainees. 2/x

Trainees where this was their first experience in academic writing, publishing, and peer review. They worked with us on a research rotation experience. Let's keep that in mind as we explore this review. 3/x

We submitted our paper and received a decision in about four weeks - great! The journal secured one reviewer and an associate editor provided the second review. This happens sometimes and I've done it myself as an editor. 4/x

Things begin with reviewer 1 fairly normally. They provide us a line by line of recommendations related to the text and questions they had. I think they could have been more critical about the work, but they were professional, neutral, and respectful. 5/x

Then we get to reviewer 2. It starts out positive, albeit with a slight dig that we didn't contact the journal ahead of time to submit our manuscript. Their author instructions say contacting them ahead of time is optional, so we figured that was fine. 6/x

As you see in the above text, the reviewer was not a fan of passive voice in our manuscript. This is fair. We're scientists/pharmacists and not professional writers, so this can happen. However, it becomes increasingly clear that this reviewer has very specific writing taste. 7/x

Style is always a concern with journals, and that's appropriate. Authors try to follow guidelines as much as possible prior to submission, but since every single journal is different and nuanced, there is often still clean up once accepted. As an editor, I expect this. 8/x

However, after pages of these comments, it is clear that this editor has a very specific style and set of demands beyond what any journal usually expects. I've only include small subsets here, but there's a lot. Reviewer 2's review was 4399 words. 9/x

They characterize our style with rather aggressive language, indicating that we are 'bludgeoning' the reader with our text. 10/x

They also suggest that we weaponize our language to 'brag' about our work. 11/x

Other areas are criticized for being 'flowery' and 'terrible.' 12/x

In some areas, we were accused of not doing the work we claimed to do. 13/x

In one place, where we had a typo in an author name, the reviewer points out the mistake in a patronizing way. 14/x

We forgot to update an entry in our figure to align with the text, which led the reviewer to asking whether we found the conference we were referring to as 'impertinent.' 15/x

We accidentally used words that the reviewer considered 'high-falutin',' unbeknownst to us regarding his personal tastes. 16/x

In another place, as opposed to being 'high-falutin,' we apparently were too colloquial. I'm not entirely sure where the balance is meant to be. 17/x

Interestingly, after all of this, we were given an opportunity to resubmit. You may be as surprised as I was. But we went ahead and did this, bracing for the response. 18/x

It was clear that we didn't meet expectations despite our best efforts. This was questioned as 'willful regard,' even though we did include a line-by-line response detailing our best efforts. 19/x

The passive voice was the main kicker. The editor counted the instances in our paper (only for their own reasons, not provided to us to allow us to fix) and provided an incredibly inappropriate analysis of why we didn't fix all of them. 20/x

This analysis, as you can see, included the questioning of the value of the academic degrees across our author team. It also patronized our assumed ages and not knowing what a chalkboard would be. This geriatric millennial is well aware. 21/x

The language of our response document (internal, not published) was also criticized for not conforming with the language requests. I realize I'm using passive voice in this tweet - hopefully this is allowed in my own tweets. 22/x

As mentioned, this paper was accepted. I write about it semi-anonymously here for learning purposes.

I want to break down a few important take-aways from this experience for those that peer review, that serve at journals, and that submit their work for publication. 23/x

Peer review should not be aggressive or accusatory. It should not assume intentions on the part of the authors. It should not be a place to attempt to demand others conform to your individual desires and quirks. 24/x

Peer review should be thorough, critical, and neutral in tone. It should provide helpful feedback to the authors, regardless of the manuscript decision. It should set positive examples for trainees that receive it and learn from it. 25/x

It is meant to be a partnership, even if often anonymous in nature. Sometimes the process includes disappointment or frustration, but it should never feel like an attack. If it does, we're doing it wrong. 26/x

I was happy to be vulnerable to take you through this experience because I think there is a lot to be learned. I realize you may be able to suss out which paper this is and who was involved, but I'd ask you to put that aside. 27/x

What's important here is that in a society where common decency and care for each other is eroding quickly, that we do our best to fight against it. That we do better, and are better for each other.