Read on Twitter
Scientific journal reviews suck because academics suck at reviewing.
A tweetstorm with some thoughts on the ethics and quality of the journal review process. 0/9
A tweetstorm with some thoughts on the ethics and quality of the journal review process. 0/9
Giving good feedback is a skill, and one that academics don't develop.
There is little attention paid to the teaching about giving feedback and reviewing papers in academia. It's a critical part of scholarship, not to mention teaching students, so this is unfortunate. 1/9
There is little attention paid to the teaching about giving feedback and reviewing papers in academia. It's a critical part of scholarship, not to mention teaching students, so this is unfortunate. 1/9
First, if you write papers, you need to review papers.
This is a simple argument; if you benefit from a public service, you should contribute enough to cover the costs. While journals do not pay reviewers, the authors rely on unpaid academic providing reviews. 2/9
This is a simple argument; if you benefit from a public service, you should contribute enough to cover the costs. While journals do not pay reviewers, the authors rely on unpaid academic providing reviews. 2/9
And reviewing papers, in my experience, is a useful way to learn how to write better papers yourself. You notice the flaws that are also present in your work more clearly, and you notice the things they do well that you can emulate. 3/9
Obviously, students often begin writing academic papers well before they are reasonably capable of adequate reviews, but their advisors would be (and often are) remiss in preparing student to write papers and respond to reviews without demonstrating the other side. 4/9
Reciprocity also means that academics should be no harsher in their reviews than they would want to be treated. But basic decency, in this case, is a higher standard.
Don't be a jerk. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_jerk
As an aside, the advice isn't exclusive to journal review. 5/9 https://twitter.com/davidmanheim/status/1348961669641351169
Don't be a jerk. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_jerk
As an aside, the advice isn't exclusive to journal review. 5/9 https://twitter.com/davidmanheim/status/1348961669641351169
Often, reviews are blind. You might not know if the author is an ambitious first-time undergraduate author, a depressed graduate student, or a tenured professor with their lab. So be nice, *especially* if/when explaining that the paper is unpublishable, or made basic errors. 6/9 https://twitter.com/davidmanheim/status/1348962954956443649
To build on this point, reviews can and should be substantively useful feedback.
If a paper is not good enough to review, you should be telling the authors what they did wrong, and hopefully providing them enough feedback so their future papers don't have the same problems. 7/9 https://twitter.com/davidmanheim/status/1348963306992766976
If a paper is not good enough to review, you should be telling the authors what they did wrong, and hopefully providing them enough feedback so their future papers don't have the same problems. 7/9 https://twitter.com/davidmanheim/status/1348963306992766976
I think reviews should be published as a matter of routine, even if they are kept anonymous. In some ways, this goes double for rejections, though logistics are obviously harder.
Feel free to disagree, but I think more transparency in academia, even for reviews, is valuable. 8/9
Feel free to disagree, but I think more transparency in academia, even for reviews, is valuable. 8/9
But even if reviews aren't public, treat your review as though it's something you will be asked to publicly defend / stand behind.
That's both practical advice, given the dismal state of cybersecurity, and a good way to make sure you're being a decent reviewer. 9/9 https://twitter.com/davidmanheim/status/1348964595604615171
That's both practical advice, given the dismal state of cybersecurity, and a good way to make sure you're being a decent reviewer. 9/9 https://twitter.com/davidmanheim/status/1348964595604615171
P.S. There are better, i.e. more open, review and publication models, like @F1000Research , @Meta_Psy, and many others I'm sure I'm not aware of.
And you should try to publish in journals that do review well, and openly for your own sake, and review for them, as a public good.
And you should try to publish in journals that do review well, and openly for your own sake, and review for them, as a public good.
P.P.S. Agree with the below, and I'd love to hear from people about resources they recommend, either on giving good writing feedback generally, or for journal reviews more specifically. https://twitter.com/M__Verbruggen/status/1348962220986785793
