Read on Twitter
As a junior scholar, I take the peer-review process quite seriously. I read manuscripts deeply (sometimes 3x over), and I work to synthesize my thoughts with what (from my read) the author/s were trying to forward or advance (in terms of argument). I am a generous reviewer.
In the midst of COVID-19, a pandemic that flattened my family for reasons I won’t share here, I feel like the number of these requests has tripled. Rather than 1-2 articles a month, I am being asked to review 3-5. In short, (some) people are not pausing.
And I get it. As an early career academic, we were advised to write, write, write. Now, I know, for some of us on the TT we were given the opportunity to pause or add time. But those choices have consequences & are at times deleterious for the most under-represented in academia.
Unfortunately, as I’ve come to see it these last few years, being a generous, indeed pedagogical, reviewer is not a shared sentiment among our colleagues. As an author, I find it completely disrespectful when I receive a review / reject that is 153 words long.
Mind you, the manuscript was co-authored and 9379 words long (inclusive of references).
I find it even more unprofessional, however, when the “lead editor” or person who composes the “Decision on Manuscript” letter disregards the other two reviews (revise and resubmit). Instead, they follow the 153 word-long reject, and the paper is disregarded altogether.
Mind you, they (lead editor) did not provide any synthesis or commentary. Instead, they copy/pasted reviews & called it a day.
It’s all good. This manuscript will find a home, and my co-author and I will look back at this experience as an opportunity of what NOT to do as editors. The work continues. #endrant
