Read on Twitter
TO ALL EDITORS IN THE WORLD
I keep seeing horrible experiences from malpractice on your side. Your job is to ensure quality, not to destroy the self-esteem of researchers and maintain biases.
So here goes a short thread with some ideas:
I keep seeing horrible experiences from malpractice on your side. Your job is to ensure quality, not to destroy the self-esteem of researchers and maintain biases.
So here goes a short thread with some ideas:
You + Ed. Board are the first filter of the journal. If you have doubts whether to pass it to review or not, ask them. But whatever happens, be polite and offer alternatives/constructive feedback:
"Maybe this paper would fit better here"
"You should work on it more here"
"Maybe this paper would fit better here"
"You should work on it more here"
Keep track of your reviewers and try to find people without conflicts of interest or known bias. In some disciplines it is difficult, but in others we know everybody... We are supposed to be specialists on the field of the journal and have an idea of the general environment.
FILTER THE COMMENTS
A review is a guide to improve a paper and help you make a decision. If you have 2 good ones and 1 bad one, be critical about it, don't just send whatever. Specially if comments are destructive and insulting, or they ask for selfish stupid things.
A review is a guide to improve a paper and help you make a decision. If you have 2 good ones and 1 bad one, be critical about it, don't just send whatever. Specially if comments are destructive and insulting, or they ask for selfish stupid things.
And this is very important cause like 60% of the feedback I get is usually that, or "improve your English".
So decide what is important from each reviewer. What can actually help to improve the paper. And pass that to the authors. Only that.
So decide what is important from each reviewer. What can actually help to improve the paper. And pass that to the authors. Only that.
Some platforms don't let you. But you can ALWAYS add your own comments and highlight what you believe is important, adding supportive comments like: "no attention to the comments by R2, seems like an asshole".
NEVER use language as an excuse... It is already difficult to be competitive in the international arena to be shitted for that just because our surname is not clearly Anglo. Realise that we usually deal with several languages and we are not that bad in English anyway...
...if we are, but the paper seems promising, offer to help. If you don't have time, maybe can find an alternative. Some people have no resources to pay for translations or copyediting. Not every body has this privilege and that should not be a barrier.
So, a tip of inadmissible things:
- A reviewer insulting or being disrespectful.
- A reviewer imposing own work or ideas unless it is clearly essential for the topic.
- Improve your English, unless it offers some clear examples [*if it was so bad, you should be the first filter]
- A reviewer insulting or being disrespectful.
- A reviewer imposing own work or ideas unless it is clearly essential for the topic.
- Improve your English, unless it offers some clear examples [*if it was so bad, you should be the first filter]
- Add your own... we have seen plenty.
But basically anything you wouldn't like to see in a review of your own work. Be nice and constructive.
You know who the authors are, so have some empathy.
Bad editors won't mind and the rest act like this, but never late to keep in mind.
But basically anything you wouldn't like to see in a review of your own work. Be nice and constructive.
You know who the authors are, so have some empathy.
Bad editors won't mind and the rest act like this, but never late to keep in mind.
