what do you do when people criticise your published research? I am interested to hear your opinion.
It might be worth to think about that as a way to improve research in the future.
I try and improvize and take the criticism as constructive and not personal !!!!
I like to receive feedback, if someone criticizes my work I will take it as a way to improve my research, but I will never consider it as an offense.
Best wishes,
Litart
I am open to listen and recieve feedback from others with respect.
It might be worth to think about that as a way to improve research in the future.
Yes I too am open to receive feed back - and if the critique is on on RG for example, I enter into a discussion with the person so we can both clarify the points he or she has brought up. Through this we often find we are approaching a point from different perspectives - but that to is worth while knowing as it means that I had missed this possibility when I had written the paper. I then make a mental note to include this new perspective in the next paper I write, especially if it deals with a similar topic.
Warm regards Tina
Please, why let it be? Maybe the person has good anc right arguments! Discuss the issue!
I find that the work presented has an interest and must be continued.
Always if the research work is interesting, people will read and comment. It is a positive sign for the publication that attracted redears to spent time on it and made some comments.
Last decades science has lost an important component - the debate. If your article causes objections - this is already good. This means that there is a reason to talk. Very often there is no such reason and the reader says bad words to himself and forgets this "article".
And if a discussion ensued, this is a reason to clarify your ideas and arguments, maybe to strengthen these. If somebody point to you an error - you need to fix it.
Currently the only form of discussion is peer review. Here, on the RG, I often see discussions whose authors reject any interference (or any objection) in their work. Do they consider their works as the ultimate truth? This position is unproductive. Better to think. Thinking is useful
Dear Ammar, thank you for your interesting question.
Yes, criticism hurts. But it can also help you improve further, if you take it as a positive approach to your work. I usually begin by thanking the note of interest. I hope to be able to correct my errors. Quite often, when you get involved in deeper research, you may tend to overlap small details, as you review. It is fundamental to have an outsider review your texts before publishing. Even so, small mistakes may persist, and we should be thankful when readers detect mistakes that can be corrected to improve our works.
We must be thankful for any correction that our readers propose.
It simply means that individual is a fundi in that area especially if it's constructive criticism .....so it will be prudent to engage them further for the purposes of improving the publication
If someone have criticized my published research as sincere, scientific and constructive, I respect to the opinion and thank to the critic. Of course, the criticism style should not be destructive criticism. Otherwise, I guess I would react to the criticism.
I greatly appreciate your valuable response Maria Bettencourt Pires
There is another aspect that is not always possible to understand. What are the prerequisites of the critic? If this striving to get closer to the truth - this is positive. But sometimes the work is criticized because of the infringed pride: someone's work was not cited, someone's results were considered unreliable, author did not bow to the “big boss,” who considered this science as his “patrimony” etc. In this case, of course, we must fight especially hard and precisely.
Any criticism that is well - intention ed, correct and objective is welcomed. It should be respected and practiced in the creation of the following papers. If criticisms are not appropriate, they should be explained to where they come from that they are wrong. In any case, it is good for exchanging ideas and views.
In scientific aspects, it is very important to hear the other ideas, because in some cases the interaction among ideas give new dimensions to the research.
The vast majority of papers / research gets no criticism - at best, a brief mention in a literature survey. If someone has taken the time to review your paper, then either they have made a mistake - in which case you can learn how better to explain your research, to avoid the cause of confusion - or you have made a mistake. And in that case you can learn from it. Usually, with peer-review papers, this would happen outside public view, with the outcome being that your paper has been improved before it gets published. It may follow after being published, and ideally be an exchange in the correspondence section of the relevant journal, so that others can see what was discussed.
Just possibly, the criticism is unjustified, because you have challenged / refuted a favourite perspective. Even then, treat as the first category - that you need to explain clearly your side. If your research is valid, your defense will be read, taken on board, and add to your work.
The worst thing is to sulk, and treat them as fools who do not deserve your work. A PhD student I know took the line that his three reviewers had no place to criticise his work, refused to respond, and his paper never got published. I gave him draft answers, when he later shared his (unpublished) paper with me, and the combination of seeing how their comments could be handled, plus the passage of time, lead to him realising that the was not being attacked, but being given pointers as to how to improve his work. But years too late for the paper to be accepted.
Well-intentioned criticism is welcomed and will encourage me to think. But I must admit that tendentious criticism would irritate me.
I agree with u Elizabeta Hristovska Thank u very much 4 ur contribution
I think it constructive criticisms should be welcomed. As no human can be perfect, it is important to accept criticisms so that we can improve upon the quality of our research.
I will give a listening ear to anyone who finds a problem with my research, and proceed with a healthy argument to reach the best conclusions.
It is a regular attack on me, but I do not bother.
In one question of Research Gate (What do you think about single author paper?) once I wrote "What is the problem in writing a single author paper?"
In the next several posts, some of my papers are criticised with slung language as those review articles and editorials are written by me without any co authors.
The papers were in my subject - Ethno pharmacology and the criticisers were from the field of Mathematics!
They even did not read the original published version of the papers before adding such comments.
My advice : it is better to overlook such comments performed by some idiots.
Thanks.
Getting published means acceptance of any kind of criticism. First stage of that critisism is the peer review process.
I will appreciate constructive criticism but ignore destructive criticism.
إذا اشتمل النقد على ما يحسن البحث فذلك يسعدني، وأما إن كان النقد من أجل النقد فأكيد سيكون له تأثير سلبي على نفسيتي.
Criticism in terms of what?
About novelty or too elementary? Poor writeup? Some factors of critiquing are the duties of the journal. One may wish to ask, is that paper published in a standard journal, with peer review?
If not, it must lack quality. Peer review is a quality control that refine majority of shortcomings in a paper. Publishing in a standard journal would treat many would-be lapses.
However, not 100% of all these could be taken care. The little remaining lapses worth no destructive criticism. It's a form of feedback. Even though, a paper rejected in one journal but published in another later won Nobel price recently. What is observed in one journal by their reviewers may not be done by another peers. This is why we should understand that no article is 100% neated up.
First, try to understand the essence of the criticism. If it doesn't undermine the results obtained and the validity of conclusions, but some fault is noted, apologize, and recognize an error / mistake.
More serious matter, if the fault found undermines indeed the results and conclusions of the article. In this case, talk to co-authors to built a collective opinion. If you are a single author, talk to the senior researchers at your university/institute where the work was performed, then discuss the matter with the research administration as the reputation of that organization could be affected as well.
The situation is different from case to case. However, eventually, if the criticism if fair and serious - it has to be publicly addressed in a professional manner. It's a very unpleasant and unfortunate process, but it shows how important is to have preliminary screening of a paper draft before publishing by reputable experts in the same field.
Feedbacks are good. They help you improve on your research. It shouldn't be taken as an offense. Having a second opinion on your paper will you to have a better understanding of areas on your research that you unintentionally over looked.
Its all part and parcel of being a researcher. Expect to be challenged and be open minded and accept the feedback, evaluate it and see if it has any weight. If you do this it will help you grow and make your future research more valuable.
If it is literally a snide remark which adds zero value and provides no feedback then ignore it and move on.
If someone criticizes my published research, I would first look into the comments posted. One is not superior not inferior, patience is must. If the point is correct I will be very happy to incorporate in the subsequent research. If the point found to be wrong, the comment will be answered and replied in positive manner so that the other person understands.
In my opinion, a constructive criticism is beneficial for me and my project. It should be respected and practiced in the creation of the following papers.
I have not experienced criticism of my published work yet. However, I generally view criticism as suggestions. The good elements of the suggestions, I adopt for future usage, the rest you just move on from it.
If someone has a criticism it means they want to give you feedback on what you're doing, that means an opportunity to learn more. If you always think you're right but don't get feedback from anyone else, how do you know for sure that what you're doing is any good? Use that information to change your performance – sometimes it will make for uncomfortable listening but it can make your work stronger as a result.
Yes, 'criticism' is good, but it depends on which type. A paper passing through the nozzle of peer review is already criticized constructively. If the journal is standard enough, those experts would done a nice job, and what remains is a feedback but not termed what people generally insinuate as negative criticism (destructive).
There are some fundamental questions supposed to have proceeded this type of question before one could answer it to serve a good purpose. And this is, which type of criticism?
in most cases, critical help to improve the quality of the document!
عندما تتم قراءة البحث تعرض آراء الباحثين الآخرين فيه وهو نوع من الاستفادة من وجهات النظر وتجارب الآخرين العلمية
If it is constructive criticism, i.e., pointing out any factual errors or suggesting ways to improve a method for example, then it is valid and can be used as a learning experience. If the criticism is baseless and appears to be condescending then such criticism is not useful.
The criticism may help to improve the work if it has scientific base .
We have not to believe that our research may prove to be fruitful in all the four side of our viewers .We have to accept it that for our working criticism should be taken as a spirit for our improvement in our working .& if the nature of criticism is for abuse we should ignore it without disturbing of our mind
This is my personal opinion
Depending on the type of criticism
If it was a positive possible benefit from the future
If the opposite was neglected, the owner of the criticism---
I think the best criticism is from people with good knowledge and detailed research content. The worst is when it comes from people who do not know it.
Critisim -
Critisim is very good thing, as it indicates that someone gone through my research studies ,he is expert of that field ,only then Criticism comes, it helps to Improve and gives proper Direction to mywork to excel
Yes, Dr Mahesh the positive criticism is a good chance to open new ideas.
If someone criticizes my published research, I would welcome and analyze. If that activity is not there, every person will have their own way of conducting research and there should always be a cross check.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publisher