Word in Edgeways

Rules for academic reviewers

Academics are a sensitive lot. Actors typically ignore the bad reviews they get, or stop reading reviews altogether. Academics, though, have to read the reviews their fellow academics write about their work, particularly before publication, in order to do their jobs. Peer-review really is a wonderful thing; at its best it ensures the quality and credibility of the work that researchers do. Unfortunately, there are some academics who don't seem to be clear about the responsibilities of a peer-reviewer. We are told how to format our responses, how to avoid using our names, how to separate comments for editors from comments for authors. But just as there is little systematic training for college teaching, so there is little advice offered for how to be a fair and useful reviewer.

Maybe someone has already written on this, but if they have, it's not popping out at me in any google search. So, for what it's worth, here's my list. Add, delete, modify if you wish, or point me in the direction of a better list if there's one out there.

Rules for academic reviewers.

1. Stick to the deadline.
2. You are a reviewer, not a censor. Some criticism legitimately comes after publication, not before it.
3. Be concrete.
4. Be unobtrusive. This is not an opportunity for publishing-by-proxy; it's another person's paper, not yours.
5. Be succinct. Don’t let major critical points get buried in a welter of nitpicking.
6. Write clearly, but not “cleverly.” Is your goal to get the writer to take your criticisms seriously, or to concede that you are a wonderful prose stylist -- who also happens to be an asshole?

Rule for a writer who’s reading a peer-review.

1. Although the reviewer is probably an asshole, they may also be right.

posted by Sylvie @ 12:14 PM