Despite the explicit indications in the "Instructions for Referees/Reviewers" provided by most scientific journals, it seems that rude unprofessional answers from anonymous reviewers are more common than we wish they were. Researchers recently reported that more than half of the authors submitting scientific manuscripts to international journals receive one or more unfair unprofessional reviews. Any Editor knows that unprofessional reviews should be dismissed and the reviewer should be warned about his/her misconduct. Some Editors may even remove the unprofessional reviewers from the list of experts from which they chose reviewers. However, we all know that recruiting reviewers (a voluntary time-consuming, and mostly unrewarded job) is increasingly hard, and Editors often need to invite many experts before one accepts to review, and so Editors seem to be more and more permissive and flexible with reviewers' reports. Within this context, my question is: How would you deal with expert reviewers that send unprofessional reviews? Is there any novel (or more effective than the usual) way to discourage reviewers from sending unfair reports without discouraging experts from accepting editorial invitations to review manuscripts?
These examples should give you a good idea of what unprofessional reviews can include (while reading them, please have in mind that the "authors" are colleagues with proven expertise in their fields):
“The first author is a woman. She should be in the kitchen, not writing papers.”
“The author’s last name sounds Spanish. I didn’t read the manuscript because I’m sure it is full of bad English.”
“Obviously, the authors have no idea what they are talking about”
“…. authors should not be doing science at all.”
“… I don´t care how many papers the authors have published, it is clear to me they are unfit to do good science”
““What the authors have done is an insult to science"
“You should look closely at a career outside of science.”
"[X] tried this in the 1990s and failed and he was more creative than you".
For more details, please read these articles:
Article Dealing with inappropriate-, low-quality-, and other forms o...
Article Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrep...
Article The good, the bad and the rude peer-review
I think that if reviewers are rude and unprofessional in their reviews, one has to defend or explain clearly if one is right, so the editors could see that the reviewers are unprofessional. It is left for the editors to address this issue with the reviewers. It is also not easy sometimes getting a reviewer to review a paper, one has to ignore their rudeness and look at it from a different angle.
Thank you Osaretin Christabel Okonji for your insight. I have included a few examples of unprofessional reviews (please see above, at the end of the discussion's main text). I agree with you entirely. What you have answered and a bunch of other alternatives are included in the literature I listed above. I am hoping we can find new alternatives to deal with this problem.
Here is a previous related discussion: https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_prepared_are_article_reviewers_to_make_more_gentle_reviews
While i think most of the time reviewers highlight the major point in the manuscript to make it better but the unprofessional questions, suggestions and instructions should be avoided. The editors should take this step to stop these unprofessional reviewers to comment.
Thanks Wolfgang R. Dick for the link to a previous discussion.
Indeed, unfortunately, we know there are too many reviewers out there not properly prepared to make gentle reviews. I understand that if you are not a gentle person, you may not write gentle reviews. Actually, any author should be able to deal with that ok. However, there is a considerable difference between not being gentle, and being unprofessional I'm not sure where is the line -if there is one- separating the two behaviors, but the latter involves (among other things) being unnecessarily mean, and writing partial, unfair, insulting opinions as well as ad hominem attacks on authors, their institutions, and/or other demographics.
Important: I am not talking about banning these colleagues, whatsoever, because for as long as we use peer-review we need as many reviewers as possible. What I´m talking about is finding an Editorial tool or mechanism that discourages reviewers from negative behavior in a more effective way than current tools do, without discouraging them from doing reviews. .... any ideas?
As for tools, some journals keep reviewers blind to the authors of the paper they are reviewing. Just as the reviewers are anonymous to the authors, so are the authors to the reviewers. This can have the effect of removing personal bias among reviewers. I have not found it makes the job of finding reviewers anymore difficult than otherwise. Also, I have attached a paper as relevant now as it was when it was published regarding the subject of this thread. I hope it is read by everyone reading this and anyone who reviews manuscripts.
It is a factor that has been growing today, scientific journals must achieve greater weight in the search for referees and expert reviewers who dominate the content of the articles they review, many reviews that they send sometimes do not understand what they want to explain . Many magazines even delay publication time because of this. Very good question. Kind regards
I have a 3-steps method I want to share, especially, with young scientists (it might be obvious to older colleagues). STEP 1) Whenever I receive unprofessional comments from a reviewer I mark them and carefully write down the reasons why I believe they are unprofessional (and not just plain negative critics of my work). This requires you to read/know what exactly is considered "unprofessional comment/behavior", and there is plenty of online material about that (see above, the introductory words for this Discussion). STEP 2) IF I am able to write one or more objective reasons supporting that one or more comments are indeed unprofessional, then I evaluate if that / those comments may cause rejection or not. STEP 3) IF I think they could cause the rejection of my manuscript, then I make sure the Editor knows about the unpro comments, my reasoning, and my suggestions about how to proceed (e.g., dismiss those comments or dismiss that reviewer and invite another, etc).
I don't know of one editor who would risk the costs of willingly supporting unprofessional reviews. However, sometimes Editors wouldn't notice the unprofessional comments embedded in a long review unless you call their attention to them. So, do not hesitate to let them know about any unpro comment you may receive (but do it politely).
"Obviously, the authors have no idea what they are talking about" found, more or less in this form. I withdrew the paper and sent it to another journal with similar IF, where it was accepted
I want to share with you a very helpful thread by Elly Knight on Twitter about how to deal with Peer Review ("a logistical and emotional roadmap"): https://twitter.com/ellycknight/status/1456339626310782978?s=20
I am part of editorial boards for four scientific journals. Happily, I have never seen comments like those in the examples. Although I am aware that it is being increasigly difficult to find reviewers, I would inmediately dismiss and let the reviewer know that the comments are inapropriate and he/she would not be invited again to review for the journal.
Dear José M. Riascos Thank you very much for your input! When I started this discussion, I was more concerned about the colleagues submitting their ms for review, than about those acting as Editors because Editorial staff members have the support of their editorials and they even can debate (among them) before they decide on a given situation. Authors, on the other side, are, usually, more isolated and supportless. I wanted to create a space (like this RG Discussion) where they can find some advice and support. Having said that, I totally agree with you, as you can see in the Intro above.
Thanks Alejandro Bortolus for sharing your ideas and bring this discussion
Best regards
Hello Alejandro Bortolus and everybody
I am equally disappointed that such reviews have been issued.
I am encouraged by responses like José M. Riascos but I worry that that there are not enough viewpoints like that and "bad reviews" keep going on and on.
I know it has been a long time since you started the discussion but I am surprised that the point to take the manuscript to another journal has not been mentioned so much.
I couldn't believe what I'd read!!! I think it happens not only in science careers, of course! "Professionals" like them are common all around the world. It is not a surprise, but it shouldn't happen. In science, we try to understand behaviors or whatever and our first thinking may be wrong many times (and it is usual), but we try again and again. That is what Science does! And even if the reviewers are at the top of their careers, once they were "nothing" for Science! Or, if sometimes the paper doesn't present the technical conditions to be accepted, it is their function to make observations about the paper, not personal opinions!! Especially thoughts which are xenophobic, sexist, homophobic, or any kind of personal opinion that has not to do with the paper itself! Reviewers are NOT God! And I am not sure if God really exists...
Dear Cleuza Trevisan, Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I understand your anger and concern. Please note that I started this RG-Discussion as a platform for colleagues not only to share their personal experiences, but to provide alternative tools, clues, or any advice for other colleagues, young scientists, and science students who don´t know how to deal with this kind of situation. Many people don´t know what to do, who to contact? or what to say? how to react? and reading about others’ similar experiences may alleviate the stress and facilitate making good decisions throughout the reviewing process. This is a very sensitive topic, and I encourage everybody to write in a positive, constructive, and inclusive way, to provide sound advice to others. So far, I´m glad to see that we were able to compile many good ideas and advice!
Best,
Ale
Sorry @Alejandro Bortolus . It was not my intention to be rude. It is just I thought scientists wouldn't/shouldn't use those kind of words... And about ideas, maybe a direct box for issues like that, where we could upload files/pictures as evidence of their unprofessional behavior. And maybe a research with some questions regarding the application process after the acceptance or not of the article.
Well “The first author is a woman. She should be in the kitchen, not writing papers.” is clearly sexist and I don't see which serious editor could let this pass as comment.
“Obviously, the authors have no idea what they are talking about" => this might happen .. :))
This is a great question. As an editor I tend to make decisions based off the actual scientific objections made by the reviewer. When I observe unprofessional comments (I.e. direct attacks on authors not related to scientific work of the manuscript) I will actively delete these comments from the response. Ofter these negative, unprofessional reviews come from individuals with either an undisclosed COI or some sort of axe to grind with the authors. This does not make the comments related to the science wrong, but there is no place for innuendo, attacks on authors, conspiracy theories, or other unprofessional comments in a professional scientific review. Personally I feel that individuals who do this sort of thing should be warned. They either think that anonymity allows for them to say whatever they wish (an issue we see on all sorts of comment sections and social media platforms) or they think that because they are tenured they are allowed to say defamatory or inappropriate things (another false assumption). However, in this case, there are standards we need to keep, and the journal/editor know the identities of the reviewers. Unprofessional reviews should be noted and these individuals should be avoided as providing expert reviews in the future, as part of being an expert also means being professional.
If a reviewer sends an unprofessional review, it is important to address the situation promptly. I would start by sending a polite, but firm message to the reviewer reminding them of the standards of professional behavior expected of them. If the reviewer fails to adhere to the standards, I would escalate the situation to the referee editor or journal editor. If the issue still persists, I would consider taking further action, such as filing a formal complaint or asking the reviewer to be removed from the reviewing process.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Psychology
- Attitude