Brutal reviews

[Acinonyx2]

I'm on the editorial for a journal and sometimes send out for reviews. I just had a review back for an article which was just absolutely brutal. I can't possibly send this to the author. I just sent a brief thanks back but I have been stewing on it. The reviewer is a senior academic, someone I have hitherto revered in their field - hence my asking for the review. Their two main points are valid - but could be dealt with. This review landed in my in box just as I had sent my own review on another paper - and I felt I tried very hard to be tactful on a paper weaker than the former paper.

Can we not just encourage people rather than just pour acid on the work? Is it my imagination or is this mainly male reviewers? Feeling fed up. All this work is done for free (a whole other can of worms....).

I'm on the editorial board for a journal which provides very clear instructions to peer reviewers on its requirements for writing constructive, rather than destructive, feedback. Does your journal do this?

Much as I hate to say it: put the review through AI software and ask it to rephrase more kindly? I know you can't really do this, but it's one of the uses for which I could get behind AI.

And, yes it's mainly male reviewers, for sure.

I too was going to suggest AI for making it more constructive.

I'm going to rewrite it myself. I usually give more instructions than I did this time because this was such a senior person I though more instruction would be odd. Lesson learned - always give full instructions. I'm a bit new to this role. Although I'm pretty sure that in this case - it wouldn't have made any difference. I'm just so taken aback that anyone would think this tone is appropriate. I'll also never see this person in the same light again.

I think nasty tone is a problem but I absolutely would hold onto the right to demolish a paper if I thought it warranted it. Not just a male thing. It’s a scholarly thing.

I've had a couple of similar reviews back. If there's been something actually relevant that would improve the paper, I've sent it on after much editing of the nastiness. One that was just plain nasty, we sent to another reviewer who we knew was a safe pair of hands and would do a good rush job!
As for the person who wrote the review, you'll know to not use them again. I think some journals / decent publishers have a way to note this type of reviewer in their system as it's not in the spirit of things. Worth finding out.

If the paper needs extensive reworking then that needs to be said, I agree, but it's the tone etc. that it's conveyed in.

I've just accepted an editor role and this sounds quite worrying! I've checked my instructions and it tells me to get in touch with the editorial office if I'm concerned about the content of the review. Do you have that option? (mine is a society journal so not all journals may have such staff, I guess...)

Yes in this particular case it's up to me to deal with the reviews (special issue). I'm wondering how much I should review the papers myself before sending them out but I'm also conscious of the deadline if the reviews don't get going. I did hold back a couple that I felt needed a lot of work before I'd even send it to a reviewer (maybe I should have just rejected out of hand - but if they could do as asked we could proceed to review).

It's definitely the tone that I found shocking. It felt like I'd been slapped across the face and it's not even my paper. It's undermined my confidence in the whole project.

@Acinonyx2 it is a shock when you get a reviewer 2 moment, especially from someone who sounds as though they are eminent in your field and should be a role model from what you've said.
Put it into perspective. How many papers are going into your special issue? Probably 5 or 6? With two reviewers each? So you hopefully have got 9 - 11 decent professional reviews coming your way.
If your special issue is anything to do with education and you need a reviewer to help out, give me a shout. Happy to help.

Oh I wish it were - I surely would! 10 papers - it's madness and I will never do it again. Finding reviewers is a whole other saga. 😧I've exhausted my goodwill for the next decade.

As someone who dabbles in academic writing I'm really intrigued.

Presumable they've highlighted the flaws / issues of which there were several?

Unless there was some sort of personal attack, I can't see how this would have been so scathing?

Was anything said unwarranted?

The problem with the peer review process is that it relies on people who have vested interests and, often, agendas. There are definitely reviewers who are motivated to "take down" other people in their field. I think this is less common now as journals have done a certain amount of work to try to change that culture, but it particularly seems to be an issue with a certain generation of male academics (who, not to generalise as there are always exceptions, tend to be competitive and individualistic rather than supportive and collaborative).

Take a read of this - it's humorous but not far off the mark: https://goodsciencewriting.com/2018/01/09/the-art-of-writing-a-truly-mean-and-vicious-review/

The majority of journal submissions are rejected as not being of appropriate quality. There is a way of providing rigorous, expert feedback that does not resort to insult, sarcasm and attack, but that way of writing sadly does seem to elude some reviewers.

It is also difficult for journals to insist on professional approaches to peer review when they do not pay their reviewers. So taking on the role (for some academics) is simply part of a strategy or agenda for their own career.

@Early3Rise there were really only two overarching issues, both of which can be dealt with. Reviewer mentioned needing more/updated lit eg from persons x (the reviewer!) and y (the author's PI!!). I do think possibly this was just too close to the home turf (which I naively thought would be a good thing...).

@GCAcademic Well that did make me laugh. That whole site is great and bookmarked for when I need laughs in future.

I've more than once banged reviews straight back to the reviewer asking for them to respect the journal guidelines when editing a special issue, rather than engaging in some kind of arcane willy-waving contest.

If someone is unable to see the difference between constructive criticism delivered straight and a brutal take down, that's not my issue.

@RuthandPen Yes I need to women up a bit going forward - with both authors and reviewers.

OMG, that link! I feel like I've gotten reviews from people who followed that...

A recent paper came back where instead of using the line numbers the journal added as part of generating a PDF for review, the reviewer apparently imported the PDF into Word, added their own line numbers, and then referred to every criticism with vague words and line numbers. E.g., "I fail to see how the statement on line 467 is supported". ARGH! We're still crafting the response to this. I tried to recreate their line numbers by following the procedure they claimed to have done, and think I got some of them, but the farther into the paper we go the more clearly we have no idea what they are talking about.

@murmuration that reviewer has definitely studied that link 😅

@murmuration that sounds like ai has been involved? How bizarre.

As a journal editor, I would NOT be editing any reviews that I've been sent without a very clear reason (e.g. deleting personal insults) and even then I'd make the edits very explicit. for example, I'd delete the offending sentence and include [sentence removed].

bear in mind that the journal software will probably bcc the bad reviewer on your decision letter so that person will see what you send to the authors and could be VERY pissed off if you have edited their review without any indication.

Instead, use your decision letter to soften the review and make it clear to the authors what they need to do. for example, you can write 'reviewer 2 gives some strongly worded criticisms, and in response to these I expect you to do (a) and (b) but you do not need to restructure the whole introduction or do a new experiment'.

if the review is too harsh for that, then you need to go back to the reviewer and ask them to rewrite it.

I don't know. It doesn't seem like AI; I'm used to AI being more florid and actually using words to refer to stuff... I know our disability team tells us to use Word and not PDFs if we can, because some people have difficulty with PDFs. So potentially this reviewer does and imported it into Word? But then to refer to things with home-grown line numbers, instead of, I don't know sections or quotes of text... it's not all quite so vague, but there have definitely been a few criticisms we've just had to say we can't tell what is being referred to, and others admit we've made our best guess.

In the Summer I received a very negative review which recommended that the article was rejected as well as a positive one recommending a few minor changes. At the same time I received a separate email from the editor saying that they really wanted to publish my article and that they were treating the review as major revisions. In actual fact after I calmed down and re-read the bad review what they actually wanted me to change wasn't much and I could see the merit in most of their advice. It was the tone that got to me in places as well as their horror at what they perceived as my mis-use of commas. I did find the editor's email very helpful

I will always, ALWAYS, be as encouraging and positive as possible when reviewing. My very first submission for an academic journal when a young and anxious academic was met with the most vicious and derogatory review I have (still) ever seen. I never revised or resubmitted the article, and it was another EIGHT YEARS before I even attempted to write another paper for publication. it knocked my confidence that much.
I am not confident in my own knowledge and voice that I will take constructive criticism to improve my writing, but also push back when I disagree.
Please, let's all be nice in a world that is full of negativity and hate right now.

From the other perspective, I recently reviewed a submission for a prestigious humanities journal, spending ages reading it and then providing positive but constructive feedbackand recommending publication with a couple of revisions. Not even an acknowledgment much less a thank you from the journal editor or administrator for the work I’d done for free. Won’t be bothering again!