Read on Twitter
Here is the quote I am referring to in this reply. Since this paper has become so controversial, and I reviewed it, I thought I would share some additional info behind the curtain. A thread 1/12 https://twitter.com/daniel_akuna/status/1329109893115219970
When I received the request, I assumed it was because of our paper from 2 years ago https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-07034-y . I was hesitant to review it (pandemic). I spent many hours reviewing - I am an assistant professor managing several students/projects - but I thought it was my duty 2/12
. @NatureComms is single-blinded and we see others' reviews after rebuttal.
First thing that jumped out was how loose authors were with the definition of mentorship, which to me was just authorship. In our paper, in contrast, we used crowdsourced http://AcademicTree.org info 3/12
First thing that jumped out was how loose authors were with the definition of mentorship, which to me was just authorship. In our paper, in contrast, we used crowdsourced http://AcademicTree.org info 3/12
The second thing that jumped out was how much the authors ignored that the data is biased and that the causal language could not be justified no matter how much fancy stats/ML they applied. I don't oppose CEM but I thought here it was too much of a stretch. 4/12
Give my experiences as author in Nat Comms, I thought the manuscript would be rejected - rev #2 hated causal language too. I thought evidence could not support the conclusion that working with female advisors is bad. In fact, it seemed more likely to reveal inequalities! 5/12
The authors' rebuttal was well structured and they did substantial additional work. I admit that I was happy to see these changes. Importantly, the authors did add a paragraph toning down the claim that "female mentors are bad" in responding to my 3rd objection. 6/12
Something interesting happened then. While I continued to strongly dislike the word "mentorship", I saw that the manuscript was still being considered by the editor and that some of the other reviewers did not think so lowly of it. I was persuaded 7/12
During the second round of reviews, I complained again about the usage of "mentorship" and assumed that given our reviews, the manuscript will no longer be considered. 8/12
During the third round, I was surprised the manuscript was still considered. I didn't say anything though. I liked that authors did additional per-field analyses and language changes. Also, I saw that reviewers #3 and #4 were happy with the changes. 9/12
The last reply from reviewers only showed my reply. I don't know what reviewer #2 thought. It could be that rev #2 didn't have time to reply, the editor ignored his/her comments, or rev #2 simply replied internally to the editor agreeing with the changes. 10/12
I liked that they asked me to reveal my name, which I did. I have been asked other times but have chosen not to commit. So I understand that others don't like to reveal their names. But I own my review (and typos, sorry!), and revealing my name was important here 11/12
- editor should have taken reviews seriously
- reviewers are noisy; outrage is necessary
- don't think it's @NatureComms or APC problem; similar experiences elsewhere
- gender representation of review panel can be important
- open review can be useful but not always
fin
- reviewers are noisy; outrage is necessary
- don't think it's @NatureComms or APC problem; similar experiences elsewhere
- gender representation of review panel can be important
- open review can be useful but not always
fin
