Peer review difficulties. Help!

[squishedup]

Hi all, I've named changed, although fairly regular poster (paranoid about being outed, odd I know).

Anyway, I have a peer review dilemma and I don't know what to do. I agreed to review a paper recently (social sciences). It is aiming to critique an established theory (theory one, with which I am familiar), via the use of a newer one (theory two, with which I am not at all), but this also involves a lengthy critique of and addition to theory two to make it suitable to the task. Hope you're still with me.

I reviewed this paper (with difficulty) the first time and it has now come back to me. It turns out that the originator of theory two was the other reviewer and that person has written a very long and involved (critical) review, to which the paper's author has written an equally lengthy response.

I am TOTALLY out of my depth. I just in no way can compete with the second reviewer's knowledge and expertise and insight - not surprising perhaps, given that it is that person's very own theory!!

I feel embarrassed to make any comment at all - it's like listening in on a conversation between two incredibly knowledgeable people and knowing that whatever you say, you will sound stupid. So better to say nothing at all.

What do I do? Help!

What's the purpose of the review? Is it to recommend whether the paper be published? Or is it to comment on the use of theory 2 in critiquing theory 1 for the benefit of other readers?

If the former, do you think the paper should be published? Does it present a useful contribution to scholarship? Perhaps it does, and if published it could spark further debate. But if you think theory 2 is hogwash and the paper is a pointless exercise in intellectual wankery that will get no one any further forward, it's ok to say so (more politely of course). Even if you think the paper doesn't merit publication, the editor may decide to publish it anyway on the basis that the other reviewer likes it.

If, on the other hand, the review is for some other purpose, you can talk about whether users of theory 1 might benefit from the critique outlined by theory 2. And you might still think theory 2 is unwieldy or unable to provide a robust alternative to theory 1.

At the end of the day it should be ok to comment on theory 2 even if you're not an expert, because as someone who understands theory 1 you have some appreciation of its applications and limitations.

Sorry that got so long! Be brave and submit an honest but polite review. It will be helpful whatever your stance.

It turns out that the originator of theory two was the other reviewer

This should have been made clear to you before you agreed to review the paper.

Isn't there a conflict of interest here.

As a reviewer you are always free to withdraw your offer at any time should you feel you are no longer suitable/qualified.

Thanks both, that is so helpful. I put my big girl pants on and have given it a go. It's making my brain ache, but I think I can make some comment.

Yes - it is to recommend publication or otherwise. I don't think theory 2 is hogwash, and I think (think ... not confident) that the author's critique of it adds only the most subtle improvement (it feels a bit nitpicky, in the sense that it is really not exposing a major hole, more debating an issue around meaning and definition). In some ways I think the empirical data may then argue against the author's own critique.

So I think that's what I will say and let the editor decide. Fingers crossed it's helpful and I don't look like a total dick! Thanks again!

It would have been good for the editors to have disclosed the other reviewers' comments on sending you their decision - rather than surprising you with them now.

But you can still speak to the part you are knowledgeable about without needing to be expert on every aspect of the paper. It sounds as if you've done a careful and considered job.

Having just spent a month making revisions for several pages of criticism/comment on a recent paper, I would be delighted with some shorter to the point reviews as well! If there's an expert, let them have their say, but it is also valuable to hear the opinions of those who don't have a dog in the race so to speak- and a pithy paragraph (not pages of points) will be very helpful.