In the past few years I have received several revisions of articles that I have sent for publication in scientific journals. Some review documents contribute substantially to improving the manuscript even if it is not accepted for publication in that journal. However, I have observed that some reviewers are making assessments as "the owners of the truth". I think that criticism is important and constructive for the evolution of science. However, "scientific arrogance" seems to be spreading across the research community. Given this scenario, I would like to know your opinion on this matter. Are reviewers prepared to make evaluations in order to contribute to the authors? or Are the reviewers focusing on writing arrogant and destructive criticisms? Is the practice of academic kindness scarce? Is believing that there is only one way to find solutions something that consolidates the literature or limits the work of researchers? Let's talk about this.
Wanderson Roberto da Silva , thank you for binging this point into discussion. I agree with you, as I have noticed the same arrogant comments from some reviewers, unfortunately, this is not what the review process is about, regardless of the reviewer's opinion about the manuscript, that should be portrayed to the authors in a respectful manner.
I have noticed the same with some, it is definitely not right. But I think it might be due to the volumes of papers they receive and they might not have the time for polite etiquette. It could also be a lack of intellectual humility, which is sad. It costs nothing to be polite even if the paper has a lot of issues. There are also some panelists who do the same at viva voce examinations too. It's definitely wrong to be rude or arrogant, that is not the hallmark of an intellectual.
I think harsh reviews are a common problem in publishing. An article I wrote with just a few typos was condemned as "written in bad English", among other words of condemnation. And a reviewer said another paper I wrote is "nothing but an uninformed opinion" which should be discarded. The issue of destructive criticism should be addressed in academic publishing.
Sanaa N Al- Haj Ali Thanks for your comment. I believe that the manuscript has to be treated with respect, because there has been a lot of work involved.
Olutayo Kadmiel Osunsan Thanks for your comment. Indeed, Journals seem to be overloaded. And unfortunately the lack of intellectual humility is something that is increasingly common.
Owolabi Emmanuel Sokefun Unfortunately, I have also been through something similar.
Hello everyone:
I have edited two different journals for almost ten years now and have reviewed and acted as an associate editor for various journals for the last 30 plus years. I do not find the problem widespread in my field (exercise and sport psychology and adapted physical activity) and I am unaware of research suggesting it is a widespread problem. However, like others on this thread I believe it is inappropriate and rude to personalize a review with unkind words towards the author(s). Because it is difficult to control such behavior (editors tend to weed out such reviewers I believe if they consistently are rude) when receiving such a review it is best not to personalize it, and try to assuage yourself that good and kind reviewers far outweigh the bad and rude reviewers.
I share the same feeling.
However, as a reviewer I take into account the methodological structure of the article according to the existing literature on the various types of papers.
I reject requests for revisions with which I am not comfortable with the article. Unfortunately, not all reviewers demonstrate ethical behavior and think only of quantity but not quality.
There is clearly a knack to writing reviews that are constructively incisive. It requires that reviewers be not only knowledgeable but also sufficiently self aware to recognize when their feedback provided lurches into being banally or aggressively destructive. I suspect that there is only a small percentage of reviewers who revel in being destructive but encounters with those folks are rarely joyful. There is, I think, a larger proportion whose lack of self awareness unintentionally affords feedback that recipients can rightly regard as offensive. I don't think one typically becomes an excellent reviewer by accident. In my experience (i.e., several decades in AE and Editor-in-Chief roles), it is most likely to occur as a consequence of good mentorship. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the structure and imperatives of academic life these days do not tend to encourage investments of this sort with our developing scholars. That absence comes at a cost, and I think comments on this thread, including those by Wanderson Roberto de Silva, highlight the results of deficits in that area.
I also think that good editors should (and typically do) take responsibility for managing bad actors when they come to light. As Jeffrey Martin indicates, the simplest way to handle them is not call upon them again. More direct routes can include (a) inviting reviewers to revise and resubmit their observations before their reviews are sent out authors, and/or (b) acknowledging to the author that the substantive feedback provided by Reviewer B (it is always Reviewer B isn't it?!?!) could have conveyed with more decorum (or something similar), and so on. Certainly, however, preparation of one's doctoral students should include some education on how to be a reviewer in my opinion. Reviewing is an important professional obligation, and hence doctoral supervisors should regard it as a matter of importance to equip their doctoral supervisees to deal with the responsibility properly. Obviously many do, but it is fair to say that not everyone does.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publication